Comparison of GnRH agonists and antagonists in normoresponder IVF/ICSI in Turkish female patients

Live birth rate of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist versus luteal phase gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist protocol in IVF/ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis

In vitro fertilization (IVF) and embryo transfer and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) have allowed millions of infertile couples to achieve pregnancy. As an essential part of IVF/ICSI enabling the retrieval of a high number of oocytes in one cycle, controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) treatment mainly composes of the standard long gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) protocol and the gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocol. However, the effectiveness of GnRH-ant protocol is still debated because of inconsistent conclusions and insufficient subgroup analyses. This systematic review and meta-analysis included a total of 52 studies, encompassing 5193 participants in the GnRH-ant group and 4757 in the GnRH-a group. The findings of this study revealed that the GnRH-ant protocol is comparable with the long GnRH-a protocol when considering live birth as the primary outcome, and it is a favourable protocol with evidence reducing the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in women undergoing IVF/ICSI, especially in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Further research is needed to compare the subsequent cumulative live birth rate between the two protocols among the general and poor ovarian response patients since those patients have a lower clinical pregnancy rate, fewer oocytes retrieved or fewer high-grade embryos in the GnRH-ant protocol.

What is the optimal GnRH antagonist protocol for ovarian stimulation during ART treatment? A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several GnRH antagonist protocols are currently used during COS in the context of ART treatments; however, questions remain regarding whether these protocols are comparable in terms of efficacy and safety.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

A systematic review followed by a pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed. The systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis of direct comparative data according to the PRISMA guidelines evaluated the effectiveness of different GnRH antagonist protocols (fixed Day 5/6 versus flexible, ganirelix versus cetrorelix, with or without hormonal pretreatment) on the probability of live birth and ongoing pregnancy after COS during ART treatment. A frequentist network meta-analysis combining direct and indirect comparisons (using the long GnRH agonist protocol as the comparator) was also performed to enhance the precision of the estimates.

SEARCH METHODS

The systematic literature search was performed using Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Trials (CENTRAL), SCOPUS and Web of Science (WOS), from inception until 23 November 2021. The search terms comprised three different MeSH terms that should be present in the identified studies: GnRH antagonist; assisted reproduction treatment; randomized controlled trial (RCT). Only studies published in English were included.

OUTCOMES

The search strategy resulted in 6738 individual publications, of which 102 were included in the systematic review (corresponding to 75 unique studies) and 73 were included in the meta-analysis. Most studies were of low quality. One study compared a flexible protocol with a fixed Day 5 protocol and the remaining RCTs with a fixed Day 6 protocol. There was a lack of data regarding live birth when comparing the flexible and fixed GnRH antagonist protocols or cetrorelix and ganirelix. No significant difference in live birth rate was observed between the different pretreatment regimens versus no pretreatment or between the different pretreatment protocols. A flexible GnRH antagonist protocol resulted in a significantly lower OPR compared with a fixed Day 5/6 protocol (relative risk (RR) 0.76, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.94, I2 = 0%; 6 RCTs; n = 907 participants; low certainty evidence). There were insufficient data for a comparison of cetrorelix and ganirelix for OPR. OCP pretreatment was associated with a lower OPR compared with no pretreatment intervention (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.92; I2 = 0%; 5 RCTs, n = 1318 participants; low certainty evidence). Furthermore, in the network meta-analysis, a fixed protocol with OCP resulted in a significantly lower OPR than a fixed protocol with no pretreatment (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.99; moderate quality evidence). The surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) scores suggested that the fixed protocol with no pretreatment is the antagonist protocol most likely (84%) to result in the highest OPR. There was insufficient evidence of a difference between fixed/flexible or OCP pretreatment/no pretreatment interventions regarding other outcomes, such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and miscarriage rates.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

Available evidence, mostly of low quality and certainty, suggests that different antagonist protocols should not be considered as equivalent for clinical decision-making. More trials are required to assess the comparative effectiveness of ganirelix versus cetrorelix, the effect of different pretreatment interventions (e.g. progestins or oestradiol) or the effect of different criteria for initiation of the antagonist in the flexible protocol. Furthermore, more studies are required examining the optimal GnRH antagonist protocol in women with high or low response to ovarian stimulation.

GnRH antagonist versus long agonist protocols in IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis accounting for patient type

BACKGROUND

Most reviews of IVF ovarian stimulation protocols have insufficiently accounted for various patient populations, such as ovulatory women, women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) or women with poor ovarian response, and have included studies in which the agonist or antagonist was not the only variable between the compared study arms.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

The aim of the current study was to compare GnRH antagonist protocols versus standard long agonist protocols in couples undergoing IVF or ICSI, while accounting for various patient populations and treatment schedules.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Review Group specialized register of controlled trials and Pubmed and Embase databases were searched from inception until June 2016. Eligible trials were those that compared GnRH antagonist protocols and standard long GnRH agonist protocols in couples undergoing IVF or ICSI. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy rate. Secondary outcomes were: live birth rate, clinical pregnancy rate, number of oocytes retrieved and safety with regard to ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Separate comparisons were performed for the general IVF population, women with PCOS and women with poor ovarian response. Pre-planned subgroup analyses were performed for various antagonist treatment schedules.

OUTCOMES

We included 50 studies. Of these, 34 studies reported on general IVF patients, 10 studies reported on PCOS patients and 6 studies reported on poor responders. In general IVF patients, ongoing pregnancy rate was significantly lower in the antagonist group compared with the agonist group (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82-0.96). In women with PCOS and in women with poor ovarian response, there was no evidence of a difference in ongoing pregnancy between the antagonist and agonist groups (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84-1.11 and RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.65-1.17, respectively). Subgroup analyses for various antagonist treatment schedules compared to the long protocol GnRH agonist showed a significantly lower ongoing pregnancy rate when the oral hormonal programming pill (OHP) pretreatment was combined with a flexible protocol (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59-0.91) while without OHP, the RR was 0.84, 95% CI 0.71-1.0. Subgroup analysis for the fixed antagonist schedule demonstrated no evidence of a significant difference with or without OHP (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.79-1.12 and RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83-1.05, respectively). Antagonists resulted in significantly lower OHSS rates both in the general IVF patients and in women with PCOS (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.50-0.81 and RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.30-0.95, respectively). No data on OHSS was available from trials in poor responders.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

In a general IVF population, GnRH antagonists are associated with lower ongoing pregnancy rates when compared to long protocol agonists, but also with lower OHSS rates. Within this population, antagonist treatment prevents one case of OHSS in 40 patients but results in one less ongoing pregnancy out of every 28 women treated. Thus standard use of the long GnRH agonist treatment is perhaps still the approach of choice for prevention of premature luteinization. In couples with PCOS and poor responders, GnRH antagonists do not seem to compromise ongoing pregnancy rates and are associated with less OHSS and therefore could be considered as standard treatment.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted reproductive technology

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Luteal phase support for assisted reproduction cycles

BACKGROUND

Progesterone prepares the endometrium for pregnancy by stimulating proliferation in response to human chorionic gonadotropin(hCG) produced by the corpus luteum. This occurs in the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. In assisted reproduction techniques(ART), progesterone and/or hCG levels are low, so the luteal phase is supported with progesterone, hCG or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists to improve implantation and pregnancy rates.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the relative effectiveness and safety of methods of luteal phase support provided to subfertile women undergoing assisted reproduction.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched databases including the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and trial registers. We conducted searches in November 2014, and further searches on 4 August 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of luteal phase support using progesterone, hCG or GnRH agonist supplementation in ART cycles.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95%confidence intervals (CIs) for each comparison and combined data when appropriate using a fixed-effect model. Our primary out come was live birth or ongoing pregnancy. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

Ninety-four women RCTs (26,198 women) were included. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias in most domains. The main limitations in the evidence were poor reporting of study methods and imprecision due to small sample sizes.1. hCG vs placebo/no treatment (five RCTs, 746 women)There was no evidence of differences between groups in live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.12, three RCTs,527 women, I2 = 24%, very low-quality evidence, but I2 of 61% was found for the subgroup of ongoing pregnancy) with a random effects model. hCG increased the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (1 RCT, OR 4.28, 95% CI 1.91 to 9.6, low quality evidence).2. Progesterone vs placebo/no treatment (eight RCTs, 875 women)Evidence suggests a higher rate of live birth or ongoing pregnancy in the progesterone group (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.86, five RCTs, 642 women, I2 = 35%, very low-quality evidence). OHSS was not reported.3. Progesterone vs hCG regimens (16 RCTs, 2162 women)hCG regimens included comparisons of progesterone versus hCG and progesterone versus progesterone + hCG. No evidence showed differences between groups in live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.38, five RCTs, 833 women, I2 = 0%, low quality evidence) or in the risk of OHSS (four RCTs, 615 women, progesterone vs hCG OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.34; four RCTs,678 women; progesterone vs progesterone plus hCG, OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.26, low-quality evidence).4. Progesterone vs progesterone with oestrogen (16 RCTs, 2577 women)No evidence was found of differences between groups in live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.38, nine RCTs,1651 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence) or OHSS (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.63, two RCTs, 461 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence).5. Progesterone vs progesterone + GnRH agonist (seven RCTs, 1708 women)Live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates were lower in the progesterone-only group and increased in women who received progester one and one or more GnRH agonist doses (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.81, nine RCTs, 2861 women, I2 = 55%, random effects, low quality evidence). Statistical heterogeneity for this comparison was high because of unexplained variation in the effect size, but the direction of effect was consistent across studies. OHSS was reported in one study only (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 3.01, 1 RCT, 300 women, very low quality evidence).6. Progesterone regimens (45 RCTs, 13,814 women)The included studies reported nine different comparisons between progesterone regimens. Findings for live birth or ongoing pregnancy were as follows: intramuscular (IM) versus oral: OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.66 (one RCT, 40 women, very low-quality evidence);IM versus vaginal/rectal: OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.5 (seven RCTs, 2309 women, I2 = 71%, very low-quality evidence); vaginal/rectal versus oral: OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.69 (four RCTs, 857 women, I2 = 32%, low-quality evidence); low-dose versus high-dose vaginal: OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11 (five RCTs, 3720 women, I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence); short versus long protocol:OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.36 (five RCTs, 1205 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence); micronised versus synthetic: OR 0.9, 95%CI 0.53 to 1.55 (two RCTs, 470 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence); vaginal ring versus gel: OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.36 (oneRCT, 1271 women, low-quality evidence); subcutaneous versus vaginal gel: OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14 (two RCTs, 1465 women,I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence); and vaginal versus rectal: OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.54 (one RCT, 147 women, very low-quality evidence). OHSS rates were reported for only two of these comparisons: IM versus oral, and low versus high-dose vaginal. No evidence showed a difference between groups.7. Progesterone and oestrogen regimens (two RCTs, 1195 women)The included studies compared two different oestrogen protocols. No evidence was found to suggest differences in live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates between a short and a long protocol (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.43, one RCT, 910 women, low-quality evidence) or between a low dose and a high dose of oestrogen (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.13, one RCT, 285 women, very low-quality evidence).Neither study reported OHSS.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Both progesterone and hCG during the luteal phase are associated with higher rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy than placebo.The addition of GnRHa to progesterone is associated with an improvement in pregnancy outcomes. OHSS rates are increased with hCG compared to placebo (only study only). The addition of oestrogen does not seem to improve outcomes. The route of progester one administration is not associated with an improvement in outcomes.

Predictive factors for oocyte retrieval failure in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation protocols: a retrospective observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Oocyte retrieval failure following an ovarian hyperstimulation protocol is uncommon in assisted reproductive technology (ART) programs. We analyzed the predictive factors for oocyte retrieval failure following controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist and GnRH antagonist protocols in ART programs.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective cohort observational study. In total, 744 cycles from 361 patients who underwent controlled ovarian hyperstimulation with GnRH agonist long protocol or antagonist protocol were analyzed. Treatment cycles with oocyte retrieval failure and with one or more oocytes retrieved were compared to determine predictive factors for oocyte retrieval failure using univariate and multilevel multivariate logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

Oocyte retrieval failure occurred in 38 cycles (5.1%). The oocyte retrieval failure rate of the GnRH antagonist protocol (8.1%) was significantly higher than that of the GnRH agonist long protocol (3.7%). On multilevel multivariate logistic analysis, cycles with GnRH antagonist protocol (odds ratio [OR] 3.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-8.96), estradiol level on the day of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) injection (OR 0.997, 95% CI 0.996-0.998), and luteinizing hormone (LH) level on the day of hCG injection (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06-1.33) were independent predictive factors for oocyte retrieval failure. The efficacy of estradiol and LH levels on the day of hCG injection for predicting oocyte retrieval failure was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic curves. In all cycles, the areas under the curve (AUCs) for estradiol and LH were 0.84 and 0.63, respectively, for all cycles; 0.84 and 0.52, respectively, for cycles with GnRH agonist long protocol; and 0.81 and 0.82, respectively, for cycles with GnRH antagonist protocol.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that in cycles with GnRH antagonist protocol, the levels of estradiol and LH on the day of hCG injection might be predictive factors for oocyte retrieval failure. This relationship may provide useful information to both patients and physicians for developing better COH protocols in ART programs.

Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: pathophysiology, staging, prediction and prevention

OBJECTIVE

To identify, appraise and summarize the current evidence regarding the pathophysiology, staging, prediction and prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS).

METHODS

Two comprehensive systematic reviews were carried out: one examined methods of predicting either high ovarian response or OHSS and the other examined interventions aimed at reducing the occurrence of OHSS. Additionally, we describe the related pathophysiology and staging criteria.

RESULTS

Seven studies examining methods of predicting OHSS and eight more examining methods of predicting high ovarian response to controlled ovarian stimulation were included. Current evidence shows that the best methods of predicting high response are antral follicle count and anti-Müllerian hormone levels, and that a high ovarian response (examined by the number of large follicles, estradiol concentration or the number of retrieved oocytes) is the best method of predicting the occurrence of OHSS. Ninety-seven randomized controlled trials examining the effect of several interventions for reducing the occurrence of OHSS were included. There was high-quality evidence that replacing human chorionic gonadotropin by gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists or recombinant luteinizing hormone, and moderate-quality evidence that antagonist protocols, dopamine agonists and mild stimulation, reduce the occurrence of OHSS. The evidence for the effect of the other interventions was of low/very low quality. Additionally, we identified and described 12 different staging criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

There are useful predictive tools and several preventive interventions aimed at reducing the occurrence of OHSS. Acknowledging and understanding them are of crucial importance for planning the treatment of, and, ultimately, eliminating, OHSS while maintaining high pregnancy rates.

What should be the protocol selection after failure of in-vitro fertilization at normoresponder patients: Agonist or antagonist?

Objective:

Evaluation of the impact of agonist or antagonist protocol selection on pregnancy outcomes after failure of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment cycles which were down regulated with Gonadotropin Releasing Hormone (GnRH) agonist.

Materials and Methods:

This was a retrospective study. Two hundred and sixty nine patients who were treated with GnRH agonist protocol between years 2002-2012 at an IVF unit and underwent a second attempt following one year period after failure of IVF enrolled in the study. Age, basal FSH levels, antral follicle counts, duration of induction, the number of yielded oocytes, the number of transferred embryos and the transfer days, clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates were evaluated for each treatment cycle.

Results:

Normoresponder patients were separated into two groups according to the agonist or antagonist protocol selection at the second attempt and the results of two consequent IVF cycles were compared. There were no statistically significant difference between the groups for the dosage of administered gonadotropin, duration of induction, the count of yielded oocytes, the day and the number of transferred embryos (p>0.05). Furthermore the fertilization rate, clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates were similar in two groups.

Conclusion:

The selection of antagonist treatment is effective as agonist protocols at normoresponder patients after failure of IVF.

The impact of the time interval on in-vitro fertilisation success after failure of the first attempt

The aim of this study was to identify the optimal time interval for in-vitro fertilisation that would increase treatment success after failure of the first attempt. This retrospective study evaluated 454 consecutive cycles of 227 infertile women who had two consecutive attempts within a 6-month period at an IVF centre. Data were collected on duration of stimulation, consumption of gonadotropin, numbers of retrieved oocytes, mature oocytes, fertilised eggs, good quality embryos on day 3/5 following oocyte retrieval and clinical and ongoing pregnancy. There were significant increases in clinical pregnancy rates at 2-, 3- and 4-month intervals. The maximum increase was after two menstrual cycles (p = 0.001). The highest rate of ongoing pregnancy was in women that had the second attempt after the next menstrual cycle following failure of IVF (27.2%). After IVF failure, initiating the next attempt within 2-4 months increases the clinical pregnancy rates.

Comparisons of GnRH antagonist versus GnRH agonist protocol in supposed normal ovarian responders undergoing IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of GnRH antagonist and GnRH agonist in supposed normal ovarian responders undergoing IVF.

METHODS

Data from 6 databases were retrieved for this study. The RCTs of GnRH agonist and GnRH antagonist use during IVF-EF therapy for patients with supposed normal ovarian response were included. A meta-analysis was performed with Revman 5.1software.

RESULTS

Twenty-three RCTs met the inclusion criteria. The number of stimulation days (mean difference (MD): -0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.04∼-0.27), Gn amount (MD: -2.92, 95% CI: -5.0∼-0.85), E2 values on the day of HCG (MD: -330.39, 95% CI: -510.51∼-150.26), Number of oocytes retrieved (MD: -1.33, 95% CI: -2.02∼-0.64), clinical pregnancy rate (odds ratio (OR): 0.87, 95% CI: 0.75-1.0), and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) incidence (OR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.42∼0.82) were significantly lower in GnRH antagonist protocol than GnRH agonist protocol. However, the endometrial thickness on the day of HCG (MD: -0.04, 95% CI: -0.23∼0.14), the ongoing pregnancy rate (OR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.74∼1.03), live birth rate (OR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.64∼1.24), miscarriage rate (OR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.85∼1.61), and cycle cancellation rate (OR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.90∼1.37) did not significantly differ between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

During IVF treatment for patients with supposed normal responses, the incidence of OHSS were significantly lower, whereas the ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates were similar in the GnRH antagonist compared with the standard long GnRH agonist protocols.

Comparison of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist with GnRH antagonist in polycystic ovary syndrome patients undergoing in vitro fertilization cycle: Retrospective analysis from a tertiary center and review of literature

INTRODUCTION:

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is one of the most common infertility factor for which women are enrolled in in vitro fertilization (IVF) technique. In the recent years, gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonist protocol has emerged as the protocol of choice for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in these patients.

OBJECTIVES:

The objective of the present study is to compare conventional long agonist protocol with fixed antagonist protocol in PCOS patients undergoing IVF cycle.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Retrospective analysis of 4 years data of a single center from northern India. Totally 81 patients who had long agonist protocol were compared with 36 patients with similar baseline characteristics who had antagonist protocol.

RESULT:

Total dose of gonadotropin required was significantly lower (P - 0.004) in the antagonist group. There was no significant difference in pregnancy rate or incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome between two groups. Cycle cancellation due to arrest of follicular growth was significantly higher in the antagonist group (P - 0.027).

CONCLUSION:

More randomized control trials and meta-analysis are required before replacing conventional long agonist protocol with antagonist protocol in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome.

Luteal phase support for assisted reproduction cycles

BACKGROUND

Progesterone prepares the endometrium for pregnancy by stimulating proliferation in response to human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), which is produced by the corpus luteum. This occurs in the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. In assisted reproduction techniques (ART) the progesterone or hCG levels, or both, are low and the natural process is insufficient, so the luteal phase is supported with either progesterone, hCG or gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists. Luteal phase support improves implantation rate and thus pregnancy rates but the ideal method is still unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2004 (Daya 2004).

OBJECTIVES

To determine the relative effectiveness and safety of methods of luteal phase support in subfertile women undergoing assisted reproductive technology.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), LILACS, conference abstracts on the ISI Web of Knowledge, OpenSigle for grey literature from Europe, and ongoing clinical trials registered online. The final search was in February 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of luteal phase support in ART investigating progesterone, hCG or GnRH agonist supplementation in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles. Quasi-randomised trials and trials using frozen transfers or donor oocyte cycles were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data per women and three review authors independently assessed risk of bias. We contacted the original authors when data were missing or the risk of bias was unclear. We entered all data in six different comparisons. We calculated the Peto odds ratio (Peto OR) for each comparison.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-nine studies with a total of 16,327 women were included. We assessed most of the studies as having an unclear risk of bias, which we interpreted as a high risk of bias. Because of the great number of different comparisons, the average number of included studies in a single comparison was only 1.5 for live birth and 6.1 for clinical pregnancy.Five studies (746 women) compared hCG versus placebo or no treatment. There was no evidence of a difference between hCG and placebo or no treatment except for ongoing pregnancy: Peto OR 1.75 (95% CI 1.09 to 2.81), suggesting a benefit from hCG. There was a significantly higher risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) when hCG was used (Peto OR 3.62, 95% CI 1.85 to 7.06).There were eight studies (875 women) in the second comparison, progesterone versus placebo or no treatment. The results suggested a significant effect in favour of progesterone for the live birth rate (Peto OR 2.95, 95% CI 1.02 to 8.56) based on one study. For clinical pregnancy (CPR) the results also suggested a significant result in favour of progesterone (Peto OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.61) based on seven studies. For the other outcomes the results indicated no difference in effect.The third comparison (15 studies, 2117 women) investigated progesterone versus hCG regimens. The hCG regimens were subgrouped into comparisons of progesterone versus hCG and progesterone versus progesterone + hCG. The results did not indicate a difference of effect between the interventions, except for OHSS. Subgroup analysis of progesterone versus progesterone + hCG showed a significant benefit from progesterone (Peto OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.79).The fourth comparison (nine studies, 1571 women) compared progesterone versus progesterone + oestrogen. Outcomes were subgrouped by route of administration. The results for clinical pregnancy rate in the subgroup progesterone versus progesterone + transdermal oestrogen suggested a significant benefit from progesterone + oestrogen. There was no evidence of a difference in effect for other outcomes.Six studies (1646 women) investigated progesterone versus progesterone + GnRH agonist. We subgrouped the studies for single-dose GnRH agonist and multiple-dose GnRH agonist. For the live birth, clinical pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy rate the results suggested a significant effect in favour of progesterone + GnRH agonist. The Peto OR for the live birth rate was 2.44 (95% CI 1.62 to 3.67), for the clinical pregnancy rate was 1.36 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.66) and for the ongoing pregnancy rate was 1.31 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.67). The results for miscarriage and multiple pregnancy did not indicate a difference of effect.The last comparison (32 studies, 9839 women) investigated different progesterone regimens:intramuscular (IM) versus oral administration, IM versus vaginal or rectal administration, vaginal or rectal versus oral administration, low-dose vaginal versus high-dose vaginal progesterone administration, short protocol versus long protocol and micronized progesterone versus synthetic progesterone. The main results of this comparison did not indicate a difference of effect except in some subgroup analyses. For the outcome clinical pregnancy, subgroup analysis of micronized progesterone versus synthetic progesterone showed a significant benefit from synthetic progesterone (Peto OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.96). For the outcome multiple pregnancy, the subgroup analysis of IM progesterone versus oral progesterone suggested a significant benefit from oral progesterone (Peto OR 4.39, 95% CI 1.28 to 15.01).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review showed a significant effect in favour of progesterone for luteal phase support, favouring synthetic progesterone over micronized progesterone. Overall, the addition of other substances such as estrogen or hCG did not seem to improve outcomes. We also found no evidence favouring a specific route or duration of administration of progesterone. We found that hCG, or hCG plus progesterone, was associated with a higher risk of OHSS. The use of hCG should therefore be avoided. There were significant results showing a benefit from addition of GnRH agonist to progesterone for the outcomes of live birth, clinical pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy. For now, progesterone seems to be the best option as luteal phase support, with better pregnancy results when synthetic progesterone is used.

The effect of GnRH analogues for pituitary suppression on ovarian response in repeated ovarian stimulation cycles

INTRODUCTION

Ovarian stimulation is employed in assisted reproduction techniques in order to obtain as many oocytes as possible. The early rise in oestradiol levels may lead to the premature end of the respective cycle. In order to avoid such an effect, pituitary suppression has been employed. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether maintenance or replacement of the type of GnRH analogue (i.e., agonist or antagonist) employed for pituitary suppression in the consecutive intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycle would negatively influence oocyte quality and ICSI outcome.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted including 181 women with primary infertility. Patients were divided into four different groups according to the GnRH analogue used for pituitary suppression in the first and consecutive cycle.

RESULTS

When a GnRH agonist was employed for pituitary suppression in the first cycle, the consecutive cycle showed comparable outcomes when performed with either a GnRH agonist or a GnRH antagonist. When the first cycle was performed with a GnRH antagonist, the use of the GnRH agonist in the successive cycle led to an increased number of oocytes retrieved (7.5% vs. 10.3%, p = 0.032) and the production of a higher number of embryos (4.5% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.036).

CONCLUSIONS

When the first cycle is carried out with a GnRH antagonist, the use of a GnRH agonist in the successive cycle would lead to increased numbers of oocytes collected and embryos produced.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Follicular growth and oocyte maturation in GnRH agonist and antagonist protocols for in vitro fertilisation and embryo transfer

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the response to treatment in a group of patients undergoing IVF and randomised to receive GnRH-antagonist or the GnRH-agonist. The endpoints were the pattern of follicular growth, the maturity of the oocytes collected, the embryo quality and the pregnancy outcome.

METHODS

A total of 136 patients undergoing IVF were included. Sixty-seven patients were allocated to the GnRH antagonist and 69 patients to the GnRH agonist. GnRH antagonist was administered when the leading follicle reached a diameter of 12-14 mm. GnRH agonist was administered in a long luteal protocol.

RESULTS

The mean numbers of oocytes retrieved and mature oocytes were significantly higher in the agonist than in the antagonist group (p < 0.02 and p < 0.01, respectively). Embryo quality, implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rates, ongoing pregnancy rate and miscarriage rate were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Better follicular growth and oocyte maturation are achieved with GnRH agonist treatment. However, both regimens seem to have similar efficacy in terms of implantation and pregnancy rates. Further studies clarifying the effect of the GnRH antagonist on ovarian function are needed, as well as a clear definition of the best period of the follicular phase for the GnRH antagonist administration.