Clinical pregnancy following GnRH agonist administration in the luteal phase of fresh or frozen assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Pituitary Suppression with Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Agonist Prior to Artificial Endometrial Preparation in Frozen-Thawed Embryo Transfer Cycles: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Different Protocols and Infertile Populations

This study investigates the effect of GnRHa pretreatment on pregnancy outcomes in artificial endometrial preparation for frozen-thawed embryo transfer (AC-FET) cycles. A systematic review of English language studies published before 1 September 2022, was conducted, excluding conference papers and preprints. Forty-one studies involving 43,021 participants were analyzed using meta-analysis, with a sensitivity analysis ensuring result robustness. The study found that GnRHa pretreatment generally improved the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), implantation rate (IR), and live birth rate (LBR). However, discrepancies existed between randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies; RCTs showed no significant differences in outcomes for GnRHa-treated cycles. Depot GnRHa protocols outperformed daily regimens in LBR. Extended GnRHa pretreatment (two to five cycles) significantly improved CPR and IR compared to shorter treatment. Women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) saw substantial benefits from GnRHa pretreatment, including improved CPR and LBR and reduced miscarriage rates. In contrast, no significant benefits were observed in women with regular menstruation. More rigorous research is needed to solidify these findings.

Role of Dydrogesterone for Luteal Phase Support in Assisted Reproduction

Clinical outcomes of in vitro fertilization (IVF) have significantly improved over the years with the advent of the frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) technique. Ovarian hyperstimulation during IVF cycles causes luteal phase deficiency, a condition of insufficient progesterone. Intramuscular or vaginal progesterone and dydrogesterone are commonly used for luteal phase support in FET. Oral dydrogesterone has a higher bioavailability than progesterone and has high specificity for progesterone receptors. Though micronized vaginal progesterone has been the preferred option, recent data suggest that oral dydrogesterone might be an alternative therapeutic option for luteal phase support to improve clinical outcomes of IVF cycles. Dydrogesterone has a good safety profile and is well tolerated. Its efficacy has been evaluated in several clinical studies and demonstrated to be non-inferior to micronized vaginal progesterone in large-scale clinical trials. Oral dydrogesterone may potentially become a preferred drug for luteal phase support in millions of women undergoing IVF.

Additional single dose GnRH agonist during luteal phase support may improve live birth rate in GnRHa-HRT frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycle: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

GnRH agonist (GnRHa) has been reported to have direct effects and functional roles in the endometrium and embryos. Several meta-analyses have shown that GnRHa administration in the luteal phase improved the live birth rate or pregnancy rate in both fresh and frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles. The aim of this study was to investigate whether luteal GnRHa administration could also improve in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes in patients undergoing hormone replacement therapy (HRT) cycles with GnRHa suppression.

METHODS

The retrospective cohort study included a total of 350 patients undergoing GnRHa-HRT FET cycles. The study group included 179 patients receiving an additional single dose of GnRHa in the luteal phase following embryo transfer. A total of 171 patients in the control group did not receive luteal GnRHa. The baseline and cycle characteristics and reproductive outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Baseline and cycle characteristics were similar between the two groups, except lower AMH levels were found in the luteal GnRHa group than in the control group. The luteal GnRHa group had a significantly higher ongoing pregnancy rate and live birth rate than the control group. The multivariate analysis revealed that luteal GnRHa administration was positively associated with ongoing pregnancy (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.20-3.47, P = 0.008) and live birth (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.20-3.45, P = 0.009). When the subgroup of patients with recurrent implantation failure was analyzed, the multivariate analysis also showed that luteal GnRHa administration had beneficial effects on ongoing pregnancy (OR 4.55, 95% CI 1.69-12.30, P = 0.003) and live birth (OR 4.30, 95% CI 1.59-11.65, P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that the addition of one luteal dose of GnRHa may improve the live birth rate in patients undergoing the GnRHa-HRT protocol.

GnRH agonist as a luteal support in IVF cycle: mini-review—is there a role?

Background

It has been established that assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles are usually accompanied by a defective luteal phase, and that luteal phase support (LPS) is mandatory to improve reproductive outcomes. This review aims to summarize the hypothesis, safety and current evidence about GnRH agonist as a luteal phase support in ART.

Main body

There are many regimens of luteal phase support to improve ART outcomes in women undergoing fresh and thawed cycles. Luteal phase support drugs include progesterone, human chorionic gonadotropin, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist, estradiol, and recombinant luteinizing hormone. There is some debate about optimal drugs and timing for start of LPS in ART cycles.

Conclusion

Although most centers support luteal phase by vaginal progesterone, GnRH agonist is a debatable drug for luteal support cycles.

Single-administered GnRH agonist as luteal phase support in insemination cycles: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To find out whether a single-administered GnRH agonist improves the live birth rate in real-life patients undergoing intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles.

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective, randomized controlled trial in a public single tertiary center in Tampere University Hospital, Finland. Altogether 251 IUI cycles in 163 patients were randomized to triptorelin and a control group between January 2017 and April 2019. In the triptorelin group, the participants had a single administration of a subcutaneous GnRH agonist triptorelin 0.1 mg at the time of implantation. In the control group, there was no luteal phase support. The primary outcome measure was the live birth rate (LBR). The secondary outcome measures were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and miscarriage rate.

RESULTS

Overall, the live birth rate was lower in the triptorelin group compared to the control group (7.9 vs. 12.1%; p = .297). The clinical pregnancy rates were 12.6 and 13.7%, respectively. There were 2.4% miscarriages in the triptorelin group and no miscarriages in the control group. Ovarian stimulation with letrozole was associated with lower LBR among the triptorelin group, in comparison to the control group (0 vs. 14.7%, p = .020). In contrast, when gonadotrophin was added to the letrozole, LBR was almost doubled compared to the control group (15.9 vs. 8.3%, p = .341).

CONCLUSION

A single administration of GnRH agonist in the luteal phase does not improve LBR in IUI cycles.

Effects of oral contraceptive for different responder women before GnRH antagonists: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of oral contraceptive pill (OCP) pretreatment for gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocol, especially for different responder women. The PubMed, EMBASE, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases were searched for trials on with and without OCP pretreatment before stimulation with gonadotropins. The standardized mean differences (SMDs) or pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used for statistical analysis. Fifteen studies with 5326 in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles were summarized. The clinical pregnancy rate, moderate or severe ovarian hyper-stimulation syndrome (OHSS) rate, and miscarriage rate was not found to be significantly different between patients with and those without OCP pretreatment, even after sensitivity analyses. In addition, there were still no statistically significant differences for the subgroups analyses of hyper-responders, poor responders, and normal responders. No significant differences were detected in the duration of ovarian stimulation, gonadotropin dose consumed, endometrial thickness on day of oocyte collection, or number of oocytes. This meta-analysis did not find an unequivocally beneficial effect of OCP pretreatment for different responder women with using a GnRH-ant protocol. The clinician should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of OCP pretreatment and guide the treatment scheduling considering the patient's own situation.