The Ideal Stimulation Protocol: Is There One?

Comparison of the Long-Acting GnRH Agonist Follicular Protocol with the GnRH Antagonist Protocol in Women Undergoing In Vitro Fertilization: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of long-acting GnRH agonist follicular and GnRH antagonist protocols among women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) using data published in both English-language and Chinese studies.

METHODS

We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, CNKI, and Wanfang databases up to March 2019 for studies comparing long-acting GnRH agonist follicular and GnRH antagonist protocols in women undergoing IVF. The primary outcome was live birth rate; secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate and implantation rate; safety outcomes were ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and miscarriage rate in fresh cycle. Statistical analysis was done using R software. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019139396).

RESULTS

In 11 studies that met the inclusion criteria, 1994 women belonged to the long-acting GnRH agonist follicular protocol group and 1678 to the GnRH antagonist protocol group. Live birth rate (relative risk (RR) 1.61; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27, 2.05; P < 0.001), clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.44; 95% CI 1.32, 1.58; P < 0.001), and implantation rate (RR 1.58; 95% CI 1.44, 1.73; P = 0.001) were higher in the long-acting GnRH agonist follicular protocol compared with the antagonist protocol group. There was no difference in miscarriage rate (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.58, 1.64; P = 0.98) between the long-acting GnRH agonist follicular and antagonist protocols. However, OHSS rate (RR 1.63; 95% CI 1.15, 2.32; P = 0.0058) was lower in the GnRH antagonist protocol compared to the long-acting GnRH agonist protocol group.

CONCLUSION

The long-acting GnRH agonist follicular protocol was beneficial in improving live birth rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and implantation rate whereas the incidence of OHSS was significantly lower in women undergoing the GnRH antagonist protocol.

Risk of dosing errors in ART treatment: user experience of single- vs multi-use follitropin alfa pens

Background: This user experience study evaluated the suitability of single-use versus multi-dose follitropin alfa pen injectors for self-administration by women undergoing fertility treatment.Methods: Twenty-four fertility patients and 19 specialist nurses were recruited in four European countries to assess their use of Bemfola (a single-use pen), Gonal-f®, and Ovaleap® (multi-use pens). Participants completed usability tests in which their performance in assembling and administering doses of each pen was assessed against defined critical steps for ensuring safe and correct administration.Results: Critical error rates among nurses were 4%, 40%, and 49% for Bemfola®, Ovaleap®, and Gonal-f®, respectively; and among patients were 7%, 16%, and 38%. The most frequently reported critical errors occurred with the multi-use pens and were incorrect/lack of priming and failure to check the dose window prior to setting a new dose. The need to 'top up' doses from a new pen or cartridge when a pen contained insufficient dose also caused errors. The single-use pens did not cause these errors. Overall, 63% of nurses and 67% of patients had most confidence in Bemfola® for correct dosing and self-administration.Conclusions: Single-use pens require fewer preparation and administration steps than multi-use pens and are associated with fewer critical handling errors.

Functionality of a novel follitropin alfa pen injector: results from human factor interactions by patients and nurses

OBJECTIVE

The main objective of this user experience testing study was to evaluate the impact of human factors on the use of a disposable pen containing follitropin alfa by patients and nurses with special focus on the convenience, safety and ease of use, in different types of stimulation protocols.

METHODS

Infertile women trying to conceive, and specialist nurses were recruited across 6 European countries. In total 18 patients and 19 nurses took part in the testing, which included both nurse-patient pairings and in-depth interviews. A standardized list of expected and pre-defined critical steps according to the Instructions for Use (IFU), was used to assess the correct handling of the pen.

RESULTS

During the user experience testing, no critical errors, related to the use of the pen, which could affect the success of the injection process were identified. In general, both nurses and patients found the pen very easy to learn, use and would be confident using the pen for self-injection. Nurses also found the pen very easy to train the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The study provides valuable information on the pen from both patient and nurse perspectives in different simulated scenarios reflecting standard practice.