Gonadotrophins for ovulation induction in women with polycystic ovarian syndrome

Fertility issues in hypopituitarism

Women with hypopituitarism have lower fertility rates and worse pregnancy outcomes than women with normal pituitary function. These disparities exist despite the use of assisted reproductive technologies and hormone replacement. In women with hypogonadotropic hypogonadism, administration of exogenous gonadotropins can be used to successfully induce ovulation. Growth hormone replacement in the setting of growth hormone deficiency has been suggested to potentiate reproductive function, but its routine use in hypopituitary women remains unclear and warrants further study. In this review, we will discuss the clinical approach to fertility in a woman with hypopituitarism.

Ovulation induction techniques in women with polycystic ovary syndrome

Anovulation is very common and has several different clinical manifestations, including amenorrhea, oligomenorrhea and abnormal uterine bleeding. Various mechanisms can cause anovulation. The clinical consequences and commonest chronic anovulatory disorder, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), has a prevalence that ranges between 6 to 10% of the global population. While multiple causes can eventually result in PCOS, various methods have been described in the literature for its management, often without ascertaining the underlying cause. Ovulation Induction (OI) is a group of techniques that is used in women with PCOS who are looking to conceive and are unbale to do so with natural means. This narrative review presents a summary of the current evidence and available techniques for OI in women with PCOS, highlighting their performance and applicability.

Chinese herbal medicine for subfertile women with polycystic ovarian syndrome

BACKGROUND

Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) is characterised by both metabolic and reproductive disorders, and affects 5% to 15% of women of reproductive age. Different western medicines have been proposed for PCOS-related subfertility, such as oral contraceptives, insulin sensitisers and laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD). Chinese herbal medicines (CHM) have also been used for subfertility caused by PCOS for decades, and are expected to become an alternative treatment for subfertile women with PCOS.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) for subfertile women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and six other databases, from inception to 2 June 2020. In addition, we searched three trials registries, the reference lists of included trials and contacted experts in the field to locate trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CHM versus placebo, no treatment or conventional (western) therapies for the treatment of subfertile women with PCOS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened trials for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias in included studies and extracted data. We contacted primary study authors for additional information. We conducted meta-analyses. We used the odds ratios (ORs) to report dichotomous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight RCTs with 609 participants. The comparisons in the included trials were as follows: CHM versus clomiphene, CHM plus clomiphene versus clomiphene (with or without ethinyloestradiol cyproterone acetate (EE/CPA)), CHM plus follicle aspiration plus ovulation induction versus follicle aspiration plus ovulation induction alone, and CHM plus laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) versus LOD alone. The overall certainty of the evidence for most comparisons was very low. None of the included studies reported the primary outcome, live birth rate. Most studies reported the secondary outcomes, and only one study reported data on adverse events. In trials that compared CHM to clomiphene (with or without LOD in both study arms), we are uncertain of the effect of CHM on pregnancy rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 3.19; I2 = 28%; 3 studies, 140 participants; very low certainty evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy following clomiphene is assumed to be 21.5%, the chance following CHM would vary between 14.7% and 46.7%. No study reported data on adverse events. When CHM plus clomiphene was compared to clomiphene (with or without EE/CPA), there was low certainty evidence of a higher pregnancy rate in the CHM plus clomiphene group (OR 3.06, 95% CI 2.05 to 4.55; I2 = 10%; 6 studies, 470 participants; low certainty evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy following clomiphene is assumed to be 31.5%, the chance following CHM plus clomiphene would vary between 48.5% and 67.7%. No data were reported on adverse events. In trials that compared CHM plus follicle aspiration and ovulation induction to follicle aspiration and ovulation induction alone, we are uncertain of the effect of CHM on pregnancy rates (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.46 to 5.68; 1 study, 44 women; very low certainty evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy following follicle aspiration and ovulation induction is assumed to be 29.2%, the chance following CHM with follicle aspiration and ovulation induction would vary between 15.9% and 70%. Reported adverse events included severe luteinised unruptured follicle syndrome (LUFS) (Peto OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.14; 1 study, 44 women; very low certainty evidence), ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (Peto OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.00 to 8.19; 1 study, 44 women; very low certainty evidence) or multiple pregnancy (Peto OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.14; 1 study, 44 women; very low certainty evidence). These results suggest that if the chances of LUFS, OHSS, and multiple pregnancy following follicle aspiration and ovulation induction are assumed to be 8.3%, 4.2%, and 8.3% respectively, the chances following CHM with follicle aspiration and ovulation induction would be 0.5% to 35.8%, 0% to 26.3% and 0.5% to 35.8% respectively.  In trials that compared CHM plus LOD to LOD alone, we are uncertain if CHM improves pregnancy rates (OR 3.50, 95% CI 0.72 to 17.09; 1 study, 30 women; very low certainty evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy following LOD is assumed to be 40%, the chance following CHM with LOD would vary between 32.4% and 91.9%. No data were reported on adverse events. We are uncertain of the results in the comparison groups for all outcomes. The certainty of the evidence for all other comparisons and outcomes was very low. The main limitations in the evidence were failure to report live birth or adverse events, failure to describe study methods in adequate detail and imprecision due to very low event rates and wide CIs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to support the use of CHM for subfertile women with PCOS. No data are available on live birth. We are uncertain of the effect of CHM on pregnancy rates for there is no consistent evidence to indicate that CHM influences fertility outcomes. However, we find that the addition of CHM to clomiphene may improve pregnancy rates, but there is very limited, low certainty evidence for this outcome. Furthermore, there is insufficient evidence on adverse effects to indicate whether CHM is safe. In the future, well-designed, carefully conducted RCTs are needed, with a particular focus on the live birth rate and other safety indexes.

Biosimilar recombinant follitropin alfa preparations versus the reference product (Gonal-F®) in couples undergoing assisted reproductive technology treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Live birth has increasingly been identified as the standard clinical approach to measure the success of medically assisted reproduction (MAR). However, previous analyses comparing biosimilar preparations of follitropin alfa versus the reference product (GONAL-f®, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany or GONAL-f® RFF; EMD Serono, Inc., Rockland, MA), have had insufficient power to detect differences in clinically meaningful outcomes such as live birth.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and clinical trial registries were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and conference abstracts comparing biosimilar follitropin alfa versus the reference product in controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) cycles published before 31 October 2020. Only studies in humans and publications in English were included. Retrieved studies were screened independently by two authors based on titles and abstracts, and then by full text.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

RCTs comparing follitropin alfa biosimilar preparations with the reference product in infertile patients of any age, with any type of infertility for any duration, undergoing COS for the purposes of MAR treatment (including frozen cycles). The primary outcome was live birth. Combined data for biosimilar preparations were analysed using a fixed-effects model.

RESULTS

From 292 unique records identified, 17 studies were included in the systematic review, representing five unique RCTs that were included in the meta-analysis. Rates of live birth (RR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.71, 0.97; 4 RCTs, n = 1881, I² = 0%), clinical pregnancy (RR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.72, 0.94; 4 RCTs, n = 2222, I² = 0%) and ongoing pregnancy (RR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.68, 0.96; 4 RCTs, n = 1232, I² = 0%) were significantly lower with biosimilar preparations versus the reference product. Rates of cumulative live birth and cumulative clinical pregnancy were also significantly lower with biosimilars versus the reference product. There was high risk of publication bias.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis included data from RCTs evaluating the efficacy and safety of the biosimilar follitropin alfa preparations and demonstrated lower probability of live birth and pregnancy (ongoing and clinical) in couples treated with biosimilar preparations compared with the reference product. This study provides more insight into the differences between biosimilar r-hFSH preparations and the reference product than previously reported.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registration number: CRD42019121992 .

Human Recombinant FSH and Its Biosimilars: Clinical Efficacy, Safety, and Cost-Effectiveness in Controlled Ovarian Stimulation for In Vitro Fertilization

Exogenous human follicle-stimulating hormone (hFSH), either derived from extraction and purification from the urine or obtained by recombinant technology in the form of follitropin α, β and δ (rFSH), has been used for decades in the treatment of infertility. The main applications of FSH treatment in the woman have been, and still are, ovulation induction in oligo-anovulatory subjects, and stimulation of the development of a cohort of follicles in patients undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for in vitro fertilization (IVF). In the last years, two biosimilars of follitropin alfa, rFSH compounds structurally and functionally similar to the originator, have been approved and marketed for clinical use in Europe. Moreover, some other rFSH biosimilars are currently under investigation. The objective of this article is to review the available evidences comparing the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of rFSH follitropin alpha originator with its biosimilars, discussing the clinical trials that allowed biosimilars to get registration and marketing authorization.

Medical and Surgical Treatment of Reproductive Outcomes in Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a common, complex condition that affects up to 18% of reproductiveaged women, causing reproductive, metabolic and psychological dysfunctions. We performed an overview and appraisal of methodological quality of systematic reviews that assessed medical and surgical treatments for reproductive outcomes in women with PCOS. Databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL PLUS and PROSPERO) were searched on the 15th of September 2017. We included any systematic review that assessed the effect of medical or surgical management of PCOS on reproductive, pregnancy and neonatal outcomes. Eligibility assessment, data extraction and quality assessment by the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool were performed in duplicate. We identified 53 reviews comprising 44 reviews included in this overview; the majority were moderate to high quality. In unselected women with PCOS, letrozole was associated with a higher live birth rate than clomiphene citrate (CC), while CC was better than metformin or placebo. In women with CC-resistant PCOS, gonadotrophins were associated with a higher live birth rate than CC plus metformin, which was better than laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD). LOD was associated with lower multiple pregnancy rates than other medical treatments. In women with PCOS undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI), the addition of metformin to gonadotrophins resulted in less ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), and higher pregnancy and live birth rates than gonadotrophins alone. Gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist was associated with less OHSS, gonadotrophin units and shorter stimulation length than GnRH agonist. Letrozole appears to be a good first line treatment and gonadotrophins, as a second line treatment, for anovulatory women with PCOS. LOD results in lower multiple pregnancy rates. However, due to the heterogeneous nature of the included populations of women with PCOS, further larger scale trials are needed with more precise assessment of treatments according to heterogeneous variants of PCOS.

Fertility Treatment Options for Women With Polycystic Ovary Syndrome

Polycystic ovary syndrome is the most common endocrinological disorder in women of reproductive age. It is commonly associated with anovulatory subfertility, for which there are a range of treatment options available to help them conceive. These options are given in a step-wise manner with an appropriate selection of patients to maximise success rates with minimal complications. This review discusses the importance and involvement of multidisciplinary care when offering treatment to women with subfertility. Multidisciplinary care gives an excellent opportunity to identify, assess risk, and potentially prevent future morbidities and complications while treating women for fertility issues. We have also summarised the various options available for fertility treatment: pharmacological treatments, nonpharmacological intervention, and assisted reproductive technology.

How Will the New Global Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Guideline Change Our Clinical Practice?

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a far reaching condition that has a number of reproductive and general health implications. There has been much debate in recent years about the diagnosis and definition of PCOS and a plethora of studies assessing its management, ranging from the psychosocial aspects of the conditions, to the treatment of hyperandrogenism, anovulatory infertility, and the long-term metabolic and reproductive consequences. There has been a need to synthesise the evidence and produce an international consensus guideline for all aspects of the management of PCOS and this was achieved with the publication of the International evidence-based guideline for the assessment and management of polycystic ovary syndrome. The guideline is broadly categorised into 5 sections, which focus on diagnosis, holistic management and safe, effective fertility treatment. This article summarises the key points of the guidance and brings the management of PCOS up to date for the 21st century.

Gonadotrophins for ovulation induction in women with polycystic ovary syndrome

BACKGROUND

Ovulation induction with follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) is a second-line treatment in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) who do not ovulate or conceive on clomiphene citrate.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness and safety of gonadotrophins as a second-line treatment for ovulation induction in women with clomiphene citrate-resistant polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), and women who do not ovulate or conceive after clomiphene citrate.

SEARCH METHODS

In January 2018, we searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, the World Health Organisation clinical trials register, Clinicaltrials.gov, LILACs, and PubMed databases, and Google Scholar. We checked references of in all obtained studies. We had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials reporting data on clinical outcomes in women with PCOS who did not ovulate or conceive on clomiphene citrate, and undergoing ovulation induction with urinary-derived gonadotrophins, including urofollitropin (uFSH) in purified FSH (FSH-P) or highly purified FSH (FSH-HP) form, human menopausal gonadotropin (HMG) and highly purified human menopausal gonadotrophin (HP-HMG), or recombinant FSH (rFSH), or continuing clomiphene citrate. We included trials reporting on ovulation induction followed by intercourse or intrauterine insemination. We excluded studies that described co-treatment with clomiphene citrate, metformin, luteinizing hormone, or letrozole.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors (NW, EK, and MvW) independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted study data. Primary outcomes were live birth rate per woman and multiple pregnancy per woman. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) per woman, total gonadotrophin dose, and total duration of stimulation per woman. We combined data using a fixed-effect model to calculate the risk ratio (RR). We summarised the overall quality of evidence for the main outcomes using GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 15 trials with 2387 women. Ten trials compared rFSH with urinary-derived gonadotrophins (three compared rFSH with human menopausal gonadotrophin, and seven compared rFSH with FSH-HP), four trials compared FSH-P with HMG. We found no trials that compared FSH-HP with FSH-P. One trial compared FSH with continued clomiphene citrate.Recombinant FSH (rFSH) versus urinary-derived gonadotrophinsThere may be little or no difference in the birth rate between rFSH and urinary-derived gonadotrophins (RR 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.78; five trials, N = 505; I² = 9%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that for the observed average live birth per woman who used urinary-derived FSH of 16%, the chance of live birth with rFSH is between 13% and 28%. There may also be little or no difference between groups in incidence of multiple pregnancy (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.61; eight trials, N = 1368; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence), clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.27; eight trials, N = 1330; I² = 0; low-quality evidence), or miscarriage rate (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.04; seven trials, N = 970; I² = 0; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether rFSH reduces the incidence of OHSS (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.65, ten trials, n=1565, I² = 0%, very low-quality evidence).Human menopausal gonadotrophin (HMG) or HP-HMG versus uFSHWhen compared to uFSH, we are uncertain whether HMG or HP-HMG improves live birth rate (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.52; three trials, N = 138; I² = 0%; very low quality evidence), or reduces multiple pregnancy rate (RR 2.13, 95% CI 0.51 to 8.91; four trials, N = 161; I² = 0%; very low quality evidence). We are also uncertain whether HMG or HP-HMG improves clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.59; three trials, N = 102; I² = 0; very low quality evidence), reduces miscarriage rate (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.97; two trials, N = 98; I² = 0%; very low quality evidence), or reduces the incidence of OHSS (RR 7.07, 95% CI 0.42 to 117.81; two trials, N = 53; very low quality evidence) when compared to uFSH.Gonadotrophins versus continued clomiphene citrateGonadotrophins resulted in more live births than continued clomiphene citrate (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.46; one trial, N = 661; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a live birth rate of 41% with continued clomiphene citrate, the live birth rate with FSH was between 43% and 60%. There is probably little or no difference in the incidence of multiple pregnancy between treatments (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.44; one trial, N = 661; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). Gonadotrophins resulted in more clinical pregnancies than continued clomiphene citrate (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.52; one trial, N = 661; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), and more miscarriages (RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 4.47; one trial, N = 661; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). None of the women developed OHSS.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There may be little or no difference in live birth, incidence of multiple pregnancy, clinical pregnancy rate, or miscarriage rate between urinary-derived gonadotrophins and recombinant follicle stimulating hormone in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. For human menopausal gonadotropin or highly purified human menopausal gonadotrophin versus urinary follicle stimulating hormone we are uncertain whether one or the other improves or lowers live birth, incidence of multiple pregnancy, clinical pregnancy rate, or miscarriage rate. We are uncertain whether any of the interventions reduce the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. We suggest weighing costs and convenience in the decision to use one or the other gonadotrophin. In women with clomiphene citrate failure, gonadotrophins resulted in more live births than continued clomiphene citrate without increasing multiple pregnancies.

Gonadotropins and Their Analogs: Current and Potential Clinical Applications

The gonadotropin receptors LH receptor and FSH receptor play a central role in governing reproductive competency/fertility. Gonadotropin hormone analogs have been used clinically for decades in assisted reproductive therapies and in the treatment of various infertility disorders. Though these treatments are effective, the clinical protocols demand multiple injections, and the hormone preparations can lack uniformity and stability. The past two decades have seen a drive to develop chimeric and modified peptide analogs with more desirable pharmacokinetic profiles, with some displaying clinical efficacy, such as corifollitropin alfa, which is now in clinical use. More recently, low-molecular-weight, orally active molecules with activity at gonadotropin receptors have been developed. Some have excellent characteristics in animals and in human studies but have not reached the market-largely as a result of acquisitions by large pharma. Nonetheless, such molecules have the potential to mitigate risks currently associated with gonadotropin-based fertility treatments, such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and the demands of injection-based therapies. There is also scope for novel use beyond the current remit of gonadotropin analogs in fertility treatments, including application as novel contraceptives; in the treatment of polycystic ovary syndrome; in the restoration of function to inactivating mutations of gonadotropin receptors; in the treatment of ovarian and prostate cancers; and in the prevention of bone loss and weight gain in postmenopausal women. Here we review the properties and clinical application of current gonadotropin preparations and their analogs, as well as the development of novel orally active, small-molecule nonpeptide analogs.

Usefulness of intermittent clomiphene citrate treatment for women with polycystic ovarian syndrome that is resistant to standard clomiphene citrate treatment

PURPOSE

Clomiphene citrate (CC) has been used as a first-line treatment for anovulatory polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). However, some patients with PCOS are resistant to standard CC treatment. In this study, a new CC treatment protocol was developed, named "intermittent CC treatment" (ICT) and its efficacy was investigated on the induction of follicular growth in patients with PCOS who were resistant to standard CC treatment.

METHODS

Of the 42 patients with PCOS who were resistant to standard CC treatment (50 mg/day, 5 days), 26 underwent ICT. They were given 100 mg/day of CC for 5 days from the next menstrual cycle day (MCD) 5 (first CC). If follicular growth was not observed on MCD 14, they were given 100 mg/day of CC for 5 days (MCD 14-MCD 18) (second CC). If follicular growth still was not observed on MCD 23, they were treated with CC again in the same way (third CC).

RESULTS

The first CC, second CC, and third CC were effective for 3/26 (11.5%) patients, 12/23 (52.2%) patients, and 6/11 (54.5%) patients, respectively. In total, ICT was effective for 21/26 (80.8%) patients with CC-resistant PCOS.

CONCLUSION

Thus, ICT is a useful treatment and could be an alternative to gonadotropin therapy for patients with CC-resistant PCOS.

Urinary Versus Recombinant Gonadotropins for Ovarian Stimulation in Women Undergoing Treatment with Assisted Reproductive Technology

Globally, about 10%-15% couples are affected by infertility, with major role being played by the couple's lifestyle. Several gonadotropin preparations (urinary, purified urinary, recombinant, and biosimilars) are available for use. Purified urinary formulations offer numerous advantages over their predecessor, including lesser injection dose required, ability to be administered subcutaneously, less batch-to-batch variability, better efficacy, ability to individualize protocols as per patient's need, better control of developing follicles, less risk of multiple pregnancies, and hyperstimulation. Published results of Cochrane reviews and meta-analysis show no difference in efficacy or safety between urinary and recombinant gonadotropins. In the absence of any significant difference, cost plays an important role in deciding choice of gonadotropins. In this article, we have reviewed the results of comparative clinical trials, Cochrane analysis, and meta-analysis to derive consensus statements regarding efficacy, safety, and cost implications of urinary versus recombinant gonadotropin preparations.

Polycystic ovary syndrome throughout a woman's life

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is the most common endocrine disorder among reproductive-aged women and the main cause of infertility due to anovulation. However, this syndrome spans the lives of women affecting them from in-utero life until death, leading to several health risks that can impair quality of life and increase morbidity and mortality rates. Fetal programming may represent the beginning of the condition characterized by hyperandrogenism and insulin resistance which leads to a series of medical consequences in adolescence, adulthood, and old age. Menstrual and fertility problems evolve into metabolic complications as age advances. An early and precise diagnosis is important for an adequate management of PCOS, especially at the extreme ends of the reproductive lifespan. However, many different phenotypes are included under the same condition, being important to look at these different phenotypes separately, as they may require different treatments and have different consequences. In this way, PCOS exhibits a great metabolic complexity and its diagnosis needs to be revised once again and adapted to recent data obtained by new technologies. According to the current medical literature, lifestyle therapy constitutes the first step in the management, especially when excess body weight is associated. Pharmacotherapy is frequently used to treat the most predominant manifestations in each age group, such as irregular menses and hirsutism in adolescence, fertility problems in adulthood, and metabolic problems and risk of cancer in old age. Close surveillance is mandatory in each stage of life to avoid health risks which may also affect the offspring, since fetal and post-natal complications seem to be increased in PCOS women.

Comparative effectiveness of 9 ovulation-induction therapies in patients with clomiphene citrate-resistant polycystic ovary syndrome: a network meta-analysis

The comparative efficacies of ovulation-induction treatments in patients with clomiphene citrate-resistant (CCR) polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) are not well known. Therefore, we conducted a network meta-analysis to rank the reproductive efficacies of these treatments. We ultimately included 26 randomized clinical trials with 2722 participants and 9 types of therapies: clomiphene citrate (CC), metformin, letrozole, follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG), unilateral laparoscopic ovarian drilling (ULOD), bilateral laparoscopic ovarian drilling (BLOD), the combination of metformin with letrozole (metformin+letrozole), and the combination of metformin with CC (metformin+CC). The network meta-analysis demonstrates that hMG therapy result in higher pregnancy rates than BLOD, ULOD and CC therapies. Pregnancy, live birth and ovulation rates are significantly higher in metformin+letrozole and FSH groups than CC group. The abortion rate in the metformin+letrozole group is significantly lower than that in the metformin+CC group. Ranking probabilities show that, apart from gonadotropin (FSH and hMG), metformin+letrozole is also potentially more effective in improving reproductive outcomes than other therapies. In conclusion, owing to the low quality of evidence and the wide confidence intervals, no recommendation could be made for the treatment of ovulation-induction in patients with CCR PCOS.

Metformin during ovulation induction with gonadotrophins followed by timed intercourse or intrauterine insemination for subfertility associated with polycystic ovary syndrome

BACKGROUND

Clomiphene citrate (CC) is generally considered first-line treatment in women with anovulation due to polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Ovulation induction with follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH; gonadotrophins) is second-line treatment for women who do not ovulate or conceive while taking CC. Metformin may increase the effectiveness of ovulation induction with gonadotrophins and may promote safety by preventing multiple pregnancy.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of metformin co-treatment during ovulation induction with gonadotrophins with respect to rates of live birth and multiple pregnancy in women with PCOS.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group specialised register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAH) on 8 June 2016, and the reference lists of included and other relevant studies. We searched ongoing trials registries in the World Health Organization (WHO) portal and on clinicaltrials.gov on 4 September 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting data on comparison of clinical outcomes in women with PCOS undergoing ovulation induction with gonadotrophins plus metformin versus gonadotrophins alone or gonadotrophins plus placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Primary review outcomes were live birth rate and multiple pregnancy rate. Secondary outcomes were ovulation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) rate, miscarriage rate, cycle cancellation rate and adverse effects.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five RCTs (with 264 women) comparing gonadotrophins plus metformin versus gonadotrophins. The gonadotrophin used was recombinant FSH in four studies and highly purified FSH in one study. Evidence was of low quality: The main limitations were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of study methods and blinding of participants and outcome assessors. Live birth Metformin plus FSH was associated with a higher cumulative live birth rate when compared with FSH (odds ratio (OR) 2.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 4.34; two RCTs, n = 180; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth after FSH is assumed to be 27%, then the chance after addition of metformin would be between 32% and 60%. Other pregnancy outcomes Metformin use was associated with a higher ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 2.46, 95% CI 1.36 to 4.46; four RCTs, n = 232; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence) and a higher clinical pregnancy rate (OR 2.51, 95% CI 1.46 to 4.31; five RCTs, n = 264; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). Multiple pregnancy Results showed no evidence of a difference in multiple pregnancy rates between metformin plus FSH and FSH (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.95; four RCTs, n = 232; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence) and no evidence of a difference in rates of miscarriage or OHSS. Other adverse effects Evidence was inadequate as the result of limited available data on adverse events after metformin compared with after no metformin (OR 1.78, 95% CI 0.39 to 8.09; two RCTs, n = 91; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Preliminary evidence suggests that metformin may increase the live birth rate among women undergoing ovulation induction with gonadotrophins. At this moment, evidence is insufficient to show an effect of metformin on multiple pregnancy rates and adverse events. Additional trials are necessary before we can provide further conclusions that may affect clinical practice.

Clomiphene and other antioestrogens for ovulation induction in polycystic ovarian syndrome

BACKGROUND

Subfertility due to anovulation is a common problem in women. First-line oral treatment is with antioestrogens such as clomiphene citrate, but resistance may be apparent with clomiphene. Alternative and adjunctive treatments have been used including tamoxifen, dexamethasone, and bromocriptine. The effectiveness of these is to be determined.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the relative effectiveness of antioestrogen agents including clomiphene alone or in combination with other medical therapies in women with subfertility associated with anovulation, possibly caused by polycystic ovarian syndrome.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a search of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL (all from inception to August 2016) to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We searched the United Kingdom National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines and the references of relevant reviews and RCTs. We also searched the clinical trial registries for ongoing trials (inception until August 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered RCTs comparing oral antioestrogen agents for ovulation induction (alone or in conjunction with medical therapies) in anovulatory subfertility. We excluded insulin-sensitising agents, aromatase inhibitors, and hyperprolactinaemic infertility.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed data extraction and quality assessment. The primary outcome was live birth; secondary outcomes were pregnancy, ovulation, miscarriage, multiple pregnancy, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, and adverse effects.

MAIN RESULTS

This is a substantive update of a previous review. We identified an additional 13 studies in the 2016 update. The review now includes 28 RCTs (3377 women) and five RCTs awaiting classification. Five of the 28 included trials reported live birth/ongoing pregnancy. Secondary outcomes were poorly reported.The quality of the evidence ranged from low to very low. The primary reasons for downgrading the evidence were imprecision and risk of bias associated with poor reporting. Antioestrogen versus placebo Live birth rate, miscarriage rate, multiple pregnancy rate, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS)No data were reported for these outcomes. Clinical pregnancy rateClomiphene citrate was associated with an increased chance of a clinical pregnancy compared with placebo, though the size of the benefit was very uncertain (odds ratio (OR) 5.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.77 to 19.68; 3 studies; 133 women; low-quality evidence). If the chance of a clinical pregnancy was 5% in the placebo group, then between 8% and 50% of women would have a clinical pregnancy in the clomiphene group. Clomiphene citrate versus tamoxifen Live birth rateThere was no clear evidence of a difference in the chance of a live birth between the clomiphene citrate and tamoxifen groups (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.62; 2 studies; 195 women; low-quality evidence). If 20% of women in the tamoxifen group had a live birth, then between 13% and 40% of women in the clomiphene citrate group would have a live birth. Miscarriage rateThere was no clear evidence of a difference in the chance of a miscarriage between the clomiphene citrate and tamoxifen groups (OR 1.81, 95% CI 0.80 to 4.12; 4 studies; 653 women; low-quality evidence). If 3% of women in the tamoxifen group had a miscarriage, then between 2% and 10% in the clomiphene citrate group would have a miscarriage. Clinical pregnancy rateThere was no clear evidence of a difference in the chance of a clinical pregnancy between the clomiphene citrate and tamoxifen groups (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.85; 5 studies; 757 women; I² = 69%; low-quality evidence). If 22% of women in the tamoxifen group had a clinical pregnancy, then between 21% and 35% in the clomiphene citrate group would have a clinical pregnancy. Multiple pregnancy rate There was insufficient evidence of a difference in the chance of a multiple pregnancy between the clomiphene citrate group (OR 2.34, 95% CI 0.34 to 16.04; 3 studies; 567 women; very low-quality evidence). If 0% of women in the tamoxifen group had a multiple pregnancy, then between 0% and 0.5% of women in the clomiphene group would have a multiple pregnancy. OHSSThere were no instances of OHSS in either the clomiphene citrate or the tamoxifen group reported from three studies. Clomiphene citrate with tamoxifen versus tamoxifen alone Clinical pregnancy rateThere was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between groups (OR 3.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 91.60; 1 study; 20 women; very low-quality evidence). No data were reported for the other outcomes. Other comparisons of interestLimited evidence suggested that compared with a gonadotropin, clomiphene citrate was associated with a reduced chance of a pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, or live birth, with no clear evidence of a difference in multiple pregnancy rates.The comparison of clomiphene citrate plus medical adjunct versus clomiphene alone was limited by the number of trials reporting the comparison and poor reporting of clinical outcomes relevant to this systematic review and by the number of adjuncts reported (ketoconazole, bromocriptine, dexamethasone, combined oral contraceptive, human chorionic gonadotropin, hormone supplementation). The addition of dexamethasone or combined oral contraceptive suggested a possible benefit in pregnancy outcomes, but findings were very uncertain and further research is required to confirm this.There was limited evidence suggesting that a 10-day regimen of clomiphene citrate improves pregnancy outcomes compared with a 5-day regimen. Data for early versus late regimens of clomiphene citrate were insufficient to be able to make a judgement on differences for pregnancy outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found evidence suggesting that clomiphene citrate improves the chance of a clinical pregnancy compared with placebo, but may reduce the chance of live birth or ongoing pregnancy when compared with a gonadotropin. Due to low event rates, we advise caution interpreting these data.The comparison of clomiphene citrate plus medical adjunctive versus clomiphene alone was limited by the number of trials reporting the comparison. The evidence was very low quality and no firm conclusions could be drawn, but very limited evidence suggested a benefit from adjunctive dexamethasone or combined oral contraceptives. Low-quality evidence suggested that a 10-day regimen of clomiphene citrate improves pregnancy rates compared with a 5-day regimen, but further research is required.

Chinese herbal medicine for subfertile women with polycystic ovarian syndrome

BACKGROUND

Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) is one of the most common reproductive endocrinology abnormalities, and affects 5% to 10% of women of reproductive age. Western medicines, such as oral contraceptives, insulin sensitizers and laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD), have been used to treat PCOS. Recently, many studies have been published that consider Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) as an alternative treatment for women with PCOS.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of CHM for subfertile women with PCOS.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched sources, including the following databases, from inception to 9 June 2016: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED), PsycINFO, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP, Wanfang and trial registries. In addition, we searched the reference lists of included trials and contacted experts in the field to locate trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that considered the use of CHM for the treatment of subfertile women with PCOS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened appropriate trials for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias in included studies and extracted data. We contacted primary study authors for additional information. We conducted meta-analyses. We used the odds ratios (ORs) to report dichotomous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five RCTs with 414 participants. The comparisons in the included trials were as follows: CHM versus clomiphene, CHM plus clomiphene versus clomiphene (with or without ethinyloestradiol cyproterone acetate (CEA)), CHM plus follicle aspiration plus ovulation induction versus follicle aspiration plus ovulation induction alone, and CHM plus laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) versus LOD alone. The overall quality of the evidence for most comparisons was very low.None of the included studies reported live birth rate, and only one study reported data on adverse events.When CHM was compared with clomiphene (with or without LOD in both arms), there was no evidence of a difference between the groups in pregnancy rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 5.06; two studies, 90 participants, I² statistic = 0%, very low quality evidence). No study reported data on adverse events. When CHM plus clomiphene was compared with clomiphene (with or without CEA), there was low quality evidence of a higher pregnancy rate in the CHM plus clomiphene group (OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.65 to 4.14; three RCTs, 300 women, I² statistic = 0%,low quality evidence). No data were reported on adverse events.When CHM with follicle aspiration and ovulation induction was compared with follicle aspiration and ovulation induction alone, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups in pregnancy rates (OR 1.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 5.52; one study, 44 women, very low quality evidence), severe luteinized unruptured follicle syndrome (LUFS) (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.14; one study, 44 women, very low quality evidence), ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.00 to 8.19; one study, 44 women, very low quality evidence) or multiple pregnancy (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.14; one study, 44 women, very low quality evidence).When CHM with LOD was compared with LOD alone, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of pregnancy (OR 3.50, 95% CI 0.72 to 17.09; one study, 30 women, very low quality evidence), No data were reported on adverse events.There was no evidence of a difference between any of the comparison groups for any other outcomes. The quality of the evidence for all other comparisons and outcomes was very low. The main limitations in the evidence were failure to report live birth or adverse events, failure to describe study methods in adequate detail and imprecision due to very low event rates and wide CIs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to support the use of CHM for women with PCOS and subfertility. No data are available on live birth, and there is no consistent evidence to indicate that CHM influences fertility outcomes. However there is very limited low quality evidence to suggest that the addition of CHM to clomiphene may improve pregnancy rates. There is insufficient evidence on adverse effects to indicate whether CHM is safe.

Mono-ovulation in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a clinical review on ovulation induction

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) affects 5-10% of women of reproductive age and is the most common cause of anovulatory infertility. The treatment approaches to ovulation induction vary in efficacy, treatment duration and patient friendliness. The aim was to determine the most efficient, evidence-based method to achieve mono-ovulation in women diagnosed with PCOS. Publications in English providing information on treatment, efficacy and complication rates were included until September 2015. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials were favoured over cohort and retrospective studies. Clomiphene citrate is recommended as primary treatment for PCOS-related infertility. It induces ovulation in three out of four patients, the risk of multiple pregnancies is modest and the treatment is simple and inexpensive. Gonadotrophins are highly efficient in a low-dose step-up regimen. Ovulation rates are improved by lifestyle interventions in overweight women. Metformin may improve the menstrual cycle within 1-3 months, but does not improve the live birth rate. Letrozole is effective for ovulation induction, but is an off-label drug in many countries. Ovulation induction in women with PCOS should be individualized with regard to weight, treatment efficacy and patient preferences with the aim of achieving mono-ovulation and subsequently the birth of a singleton baby.