Oral contraceptive pill pretreatment in ovarian stimulation with GnRH antagonists for IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

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.

Randomised controlled trial on the effect of clomiphene citrate and gonadotropin dose on ovarian response markers and IVF outcomes in poor responders

STUDY QUESTION

Does the gonadotropin (GN) starting dose and the addition of clomiphene citrate (CC) during the early follicular phase influence oocyte yield in poor responders undergoing ovarian stimulation for IVF treatment?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The number of retrieved oocytes was similar regardless of the starting dose of GN (150 versus 450 IU) with or without the addition of CC (100 mg from Day 3 to 7 versus placebo).

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

ART in poor responders is a challenge for patients and clinicians. So far, randomised controlled studies addressing interventions have shown that neither the GN dose nor the addition of oral medication has any significant effect on the clinical outcome of ART in poor responders. There is limited knowledge about the effect of GN starting dose in combination with CC during the early follicular phase of ovarian stimulation on ovarian response markers and ART outcome.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This single-centre randomised double-blinded clinical trial was conducted from August 2013 until November 2017. Using the Bologna criteria, 220 of 2288 patients (9.6%) were identified as poor responders and 114 eligible participants underwent ovarian stimulation in a GnRH-antagonist protocol for ART.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

The participants were equally randomised to one of four treatment arms: Group A (n = 28) received 100 mg CC (Day 3-7) and a starting dose of 450 IU HMG, Group B (n = 29) received 100 mg CC and a starting dose of 150 IU HMG, Group C (n = 30) received placebo and a starting dose of 450 IU HMG and Group D (n = 27) received placebo and a starting dose of 150 IU HMG. Serum levels of FSH, LH, estradiol and progesterone were measured on Day 1 and 5 and on the day of ovulation induction. Available embryos were cultured up to the blastocyst stage and were always transferred in the same cycle. The primary outcome was the number of oocytes collected after ovarian stimulation. Other outcome measures were response to ovarian stimulation, embryo development and obstetrical outcome.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

All study participants (n = 114) fulfilled at least two of the Bologna criteria for poor responders. Median age of the study population was 38.5 years. There were 109 patients who underwent oocyte retrieval. The number of oocytes retrieved was similar among the groups (±SD; 95% confidence intervals); A: 2.85 (±0.48; 2.04-3.98), B: 4.32 (±0.59; 3.31-5.64); C: 3.33 (±0.52; 2.45-4.54); D: 3.22 (±0.51; 2.36-4.41); P overall = 0.246. However, ovarian stimulation with 150 IU plus CC resulted in a higher number of blastocysts compared to ovarian stimulation with 450 IU plus CC (±SD; 95% confidence intervals); A: 0.83 (±0.15; 0.58-1.2), B: 1.77 (±0.21; 1.42-2.22); P overall = 0.006. Mean FSH serum levels were lower in the groups with a starting dose of 150 IU. Adding CC did not affect mean serum FSH levels. There were no differences in estradiol concentrations among the groups. Endometrial thickness was lower in the groups receiving CC. The overall live birth rate (LBR) was 12.3%, and the cumulative LBR was 14.7%.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The trial was powered to detect differences in neither the number of blastocysts nor the LBR, which would be the preferable primary outcome of interventional trials in ART.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

We found that ovarian stimulation with 150 IU gonadotrophin in combination with 100 mg CC produced more blastocysts. The effect of adding CC to GN on LBR in poor responders remains to be proven in randomised trials. High GN doses (450 IU) resulted in high FSH serum levels but increased neither the estradiol levels nor the number of retrieved oocytes, implying that granulosa cell function is not improved by high FSH serum levels. Lower starting doses of GN lead to a reduction of costs of medication. The small but significant difference in blastocyst formation and the lower FSH levels in the treatment groups receiving less GN may be an indication of better oocyte quality with higher developmental competence.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The costs for the HMG used for ovarian stimulation were provided by IBSA Switzerland. The study was also supported by the Repronatal Foundation, Basel, Switzerland. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01577472.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

13 April 2012.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

August 2013.

Medroxyprogesterone acetate is a useful alternative to a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist in oocyte donation: a randomized, controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare ovarian response and reproductive outcomes in oocyte donors undergoing pituitary suppression with medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) versus those undergoing conventional treatment with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist.

DESIGN

A prospective, randomized, controlled trial of cycles was conducted from October 2017 to June 2019 to evaluate ovarian response in terms of the number of oocytes. The reproductive outcomes of the recipients were retrospectively analyzed later.

SETTING

A university-affiliated private in vitro fertilization center.

PATIENT(S)

We randomly divided 318 donors into 2 groups in a 1:1 ratio. The oocytes obtained were assigned to 364 recipients. One hundred sixty-one donors were treated with a daily dose of 10 mg of MPA administered orally from the beginning of ovarian stimulation (OS), and 156 were treated with a GnRH antagonist (initiated once the leading follicle reached a diameter of 13 mm). Transvaginal ultrasound was performed, and serum estradiol, luteinizing hormone, and progesterone levels were recorded during monitoring. The following additional parameters were analyzed: endocrine profile (in follicular fluid), number of metaphase II oocytes, and pregnancy outcome.

INTERVENTION(S)

The donors included in the study group were stimulated using recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone and MPA at 10 mg/day, simultaneously begun on cycle day 2 or 3. Ovulation was induced using a GnRH agonist when dominant follicles matured. A short protocol with ganirelix at 0.25 mg/day was used for the control group. Oocytes were assigned to the recipients, followed by routine in vitro fertilization procedures in which 1 embryo was usually transferred.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

The primary outcome measure was the numbers of oocytes and metaphase II oocytes retrieved. The secondary outcomes were the incidence of premature luteinizing hormone surge, serum and follicular fluid hormone profiles, and clinical pregnancy outcomes in the recipient group.

RESULT(S)

The number of oocytes retrieved was 21.4 ± 11.7 in the MPA group and 21.2 ± 9.2 in the antagonist group (mean difference 0.14; 95% confidence interval -2.233, 2.517). The total dose of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone, duration of OS, and endocrine profiles of the serum and follicular fluids were comparable in the 2 groups. No early ovulation was observed in either group. No statistically significant differences with respect to implantation rate (68.1% in the MPA group vs. 62% in the antagonist group), clinical pregnancy rate (64.5% in the MPA group vs. 57.8 in the antagonist group), ongoing pregnancy rate (55.4% in the MPA group vs. 48.5% in the antagonist group), live birth rate (55.1% in the MPA group vs. 48.5% in the antagonist group), or cumulative live birth rate (73.8% in the MPA group vs. 70.7% in the antagonist group) were observed between the groups.

CONCLUSION(S)

The administration of MPA resulted in oocyte retrieval rates, endocrine profiles, viable embryo numbers, and pregnancy outcomes similar to those achieved with the GnRH antagonist. Therefore, MPA can be recommended for OS in oocyte donation because it permits a more patient-friendly approach.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03300960.

The effect of type of oral contraceptive pill and duration of use on fresh and cumulative live birth rates in IVF/ICSI cycles

STUDY QUESTION

Are there any differences in the fresh (LB) and cumulative live birth rates (CLBR) of women undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for IVF/ICSI following pretreatment with different types of oral contraceptive pills (OCP) for different durations as compared to no-OCP?

SUMMARY ANSWER

OCP administration for an interval of 12- to 30-day treatment period and with a 5-day washout period does not affect clinical pregnancy, LB nor cumulative LB in patients undergoing COS for an IVF cycle.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The use of OCP is an effective way of treatment planning in IVF/ICSI cycles, but published evidence about its effect on pregnancy and LBR is inconsistent, some studies finding decreased rates but others no difference.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This is a retrospective analysis carried out in a University-affiliated tertiary centre between January 2009 and December 2017. Overall, 4116 infertile women between 18 and 45 years, who underwent their first ovarian stimulation cycle in our centre, were included.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Patients were categorised into two groups as receiving OCP (n = 3517) or not (no OCP, n = 599). All patients with OCP pretreatment initiated controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) 5 days post-pill. Overall, two types of OCP were used at the study’s centre: ethinylestradiol (EE) 30 μg/desogestrel 150 μg, a third-generation progesterone; or EE 30 μg/drospirenone 3 mg, a fourth-generation progestin with mild antiandrogenic activity.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

A total of n = 4116 patients were analysed, (OCP n = 3517 and non-OCP n = 599). The use of OCP was independently associated with a small increase in the number of oocytes retrieved after adjusting for age, BMI, use of OCP, cause of infertility, initial dose (IU), type of gonadotropin, stimulation days, total stimulation units (total IU) (β 0.22, 95% CI 0.12–0.31). Cumulative LBRs were comparable between groups OCP versus non-OCP (32.4 versus 31.6%, P = 0.712). Following adjustment for age, BMI, infertility diagnosis, starting and total dose, type of gonadotropin, total days of stimulation, type of insemination, number of oocytes retrieved, day of transfer and number of embryos transferred in a multiple logistic analysis, patients using OCPs had a similar probability of achieving a LB as compared with patients not-using OCPs following fresh embryo transfer (ORadj 0.89, 95% CI 0.69–1.15) and a similar probability for CLBR after the use of fresh and frozen embryos (ORadj 0.94, 95% CI 0.73–1.21). No differences were observed in ovarian stimulation and clinical outcomes between drospirenone and desogestrel OCP groups.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Limitations are related to the retrospective nature of the study; despite the sample size, the adjustments and the multivariable regression analysis conducted, we cannot exclude the presence of confounding bias. OCP administration was not randomly assigned, not allowing to exclude the presence of selection bias. Lastly, we only used two types of OCP with durations and washout periods as per institution protocol. Therefore, we cannot exclude that longer duration of administration, a different type of OCP or different pill-free interval might have had an alternative effect on LBR or CLBR; thus, the generalizability of this study’s results should be considered with caution.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Our study provides reassuring evidence that the use of 12–30 days OCP for cycle programming, prior to IVF, does not decrease the chance of live birth and cumulative live birth rates.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

No external funding was used for this study. This research was performed under the auspices of ‘Càtedra d’Investigació en Obstetrícia I Ginecologia’ of the Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Reproductive Medicine, Hospital Universitario Dexeus, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. The authors report no conflict of interest associated with the current study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NA

Effects of oral contraceptive pretreatment on IVF outcomes in women following a GnRH agonist protocol

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does oral contraceptive pretreatment impact IVF-embryo transfer cycle outcomes in women following the gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) protocol?

DESIGN

This retrospective study was designed to compare cycle outcomes after oral contraceptive pretreatment versus the standard protocol in women within the GnRHa long protocol or the GnRHa short protocol. A total of 2052 women undergoing their first IVF treatment with the GnRHa long protocol and 3557 women with the GnRHa short protocol between 2012 and 2017 were enrolled.

RESULTS

No significant differences in the rates of clinical pregnancy (long protocol: 49.2% versus 46.7%; short protocol: 39.4% versus 38.0%) or live birth (long protocol: 44.3% versus 41.3%; short protocol: 32.8% versus 31.4%) after fresh embryo transfer were observed between the oral contraceptive group and the control group in either the long protocol or the short protocol.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral contraceptive pretreatment has no effect on IVF outcomes in either the GnRHa long protocol or short protocol.

Continuous oral contraceptives versus long-term pituitary desensitization prior to IVF/ICSI in moderate to severe endometriosis: study protocol of a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial

STUDY QUESTIONS

The primary objective is to investigate if continuous use of oral contraceptives is non-inferior compared to long-term pituitary desensitization with a GnRH agonist prior to IVF/ICSI in patients with moderate to severe endometriosis with regard to treatment efficacy. Secondary objectives concern treatment safety and cost-effectiveness.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Long-term pituitary desensitization with a GnRH agonist for 3-6 months prior to IVF/ICSI improves clinical pregnancy rates in women suffering from endometriosis. However, discussion about this treatment strategy exists because of its uncomfortable side effects. Alternatively, IVF/ICSI pre-treatment with continuously administered oral contraceptives may offer fewer side-effects and lower (in)direct costs, as well as encouraging IVF outcomes in women with endometriosis. To date, these two different IVF/ICSI pre-treatment strategies in women with endometriosis have not been directly compared.

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION

An open-label, parallel two-arm randomized controlled multicenter trial is planned, including patients with moderate to severe endometriosis. To demonstrate an absolute difference of 13% (delta of 10% with non-inferiority margin of 3%) with a power of 80% 137 patients per group are sufficient. Taking into account a withdrawal of patients of 10% and a cancelation rate of embryo transfer after ovarian pick up of 10% (for instance due to fertilization failure), the sample size calculation is rounded off to 165 patients per group; 330 patients in total will be included. After informed consent, eligible patients will be randomly allocated to the intervention or reference group by using web based block randomization stratified per centre. Study inclusion is expected to be complete in 3-5 years.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

The research population consists of patients with moderate to severe endometriosis (ASRM III/IV) who are scheduled for their first, second or third IVF/ICSI treatment attempt. Women aged over 41 years, younger than 18 years, with a known contraindication for the use of oral contraceptives and/or GnRH agonists or with severe male factor infertility will be excluded from participation. After informed consent patients are allocated to the intervention group (one-phase oral contraceptive continuously during three subsequent months) or the reference group (three Leuprorelin 3.75 mg i.m./s.c. depot injections during three subsequent months). Tibolon 2.5 mg can be given daily as add-back therapy in the reference group. After 3 months of pre-treatment the IVF/ICSI stimulation phase will be started. The primary outcome is live birth rate after fresh embryo transfer. Secondary outcomes are cumulative live birth rate after one IVF/ICSI treatment cycle (including fresh and frozen embryo transfers up to 15 months after randomization), ongoing pregnancy rate and time to pregnancy. In addition, treatment outcome parameters, adverse events, side-effects during the first 3 months, complications, recurrence of endometriosis (complaints), quality of life, patient preferences, safety and costs effectiveness will be reported. Measurements will be performed at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, 12 and 15 months after randomization.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

All authors have no conflict of interest related to this manuscript. The department of reproductive medicine of the Amsterdam UMC location VUmc has received several research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring not related to the submitted work.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The trial is registered as the COPIE trial (Continuous use of Oral contraceptives as an alternative for long-term Pituitary desensitization with a GnRH agonist prior to IVF/ICSI in Endometriosis patients) in the Dutch Trial Register (Ref. No. NTR6357, http://www.trialregister.nl).

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

16 March 2017.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

Enrollment is planned for November 2018.

Evaluation of pretreatment with Cetrotide in an antagonist protocol for patients with PCOS undergoing IVF/ICSI cycles: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of three days of GnRH antagonist pretreatment on the pregnancy outcomes of women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) on GnRH antagonist protocols for IVF/ICSI.

METHODS

Fifty women with PCOS in the control group received conventional antagonist protocols, starting on day 2 of the cycle. In the pretreatment group (n=38), a GnRH antagonist was administered from day 2 of the menstrual cycle for three days.

RESULTS

Controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) duration and gonadotropin dosages were similar in both groups. The number of metaphase II (MII) oocytes, 2PN oocytes, embryos, along with implantation and clinical pregnancy rates, were higher in the pretreatment group when compared with controls, although the increment was not significant (P value ≥0.05). The chemical pregnancy rate was significantly higher in the pretreatment group. The rate of OHSS was significantly lower in the pretreatment than in the control group.

CONCLUSION

Women with PCOS offered early follicular phase GnRH antagonist pretreatment for three consecutive days had significantly fewer cases of OHSS and higher chemical pregnancy rates. There were trends toward greater numbers of MII oocytes, 2PN oocytes, and embryos, and higher clinical pregnancy rates in the pretreatment group.

Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation with or without clomiphene citrate supplementation in normal ovulatory women undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection: A prospective randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the endocrinological profiles, cycle characteristics and pregnancy outcomes of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) with or without clomiphene citrate (CC) supplementation in normal ovulatory women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).

DESIGN

Prospective randomized controlled study.

PATIENT(S)

A total of 320 infertile women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) and human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) were simultaneously administered on menstrual cycle day 3. The women were randomized into 2 equal groups with or without CC supplementation.

MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was the percentage of women with profound pituitary suppression (luteinizing hormone [LH] <1.0 IU/L on the trigger day). The secondary outcomes were endocrinological profiles, cycle characteristics and pregnancy outcomes.

RESULTS

The percentage of women with profound pituitary suppression was significantly lower in the study group (hMG + MPA + CC) than in the control group (hMG + MPA) (1.9% vs 33.1%, P < .001). The mean LH level during controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) was higher in the study group than in the control group (P < .001), but none of the patients in either group exhibited a premature LH surge. The doses of Gn in the study group were significantly lower than those in the control group (1334.06 ± 212.53 IU vs 1488.28 ± 325.08 IU, P < .001). The number of oocytes retrieved was similar between the 2 groups (10.03 ± 5.97 vs 10.34 ± 7.52, P > .05). No significant differences were observed in either the number of viable embryos or the pregnancy outcomes between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION(S)

Clomiphene citrate is an effective adjuvant to alleviate pituitary suppression in the PPOS protocol; however, it has no impact on clinical outcomes.

Effect of metformin and oral contraceptives on polycystic ovary syndrome and IVF cycles

AIM

The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of metformin and/or OC added to the treatment of PCOS patients at our clinic on IVF outcome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study is a retrospective study that assesses the data of PCOS patients who received IVF between 2005 and 2015 at a private IVF center. The study included 496 PCOS cases aged between 24 and 40. Participants diagnosed with PCOS were divided into 4 groups according to the use of metformin and OC prior to the IVF cycle: 11.1% were in the metformin group, 31.3% in the OC group, 14.9% in the Metformin + OC group, and 42.7% in the control group.

RESULTS

No difference was found in the total gonadotropin dose and duration of stimulation between the groups. Clinical pregnancy rates and implantation rates were similar in all groups, although the numbers of oocytes, mature oocytes, fertilized oocytes, and transferred embryos were lower in the treatment groups received metformin compared to the OC group and control group. There was no significant difference in the presence of OHSS and the singleton and multiple pregnancies between the four groups.

CONCLUSION

The present study established no positive role of metformin and OC use in increasing the treatment success in IVF/ICSI cycles in PCOS patients. It would be appropriate to limit the use of these agents with special indications such as decreasing insulin resistance or synchronizing follicular cohort.

Oral contraceptive pill, progestogen or oestrogen pretreatment for ovarian stimulation protocols for women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques

BACKGROUND

Among subfertile women undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART), hormone pills given before ovarian stimulation may improve outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether pretreatment with the combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) or with a progestogen or oestrogen alone in ovarian stimulation protocols affects outcomes in subfertile couples undergoing ART.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases from inception to January 2017: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, The Cochrane Central Register Studies Online, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and registers of ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of hormonal pretreatment in women undergoing ART.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were live birth or ongoing pregnancy and pregnancy loss.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 RCTs (4701 women) of pretreatment with COCPs, progestogens or oestrogens versus no pretreatment or alternative pretreatments, in gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist or antagonist cycles. Overall, evidence quality ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations were risk of bias and imprecision. Most studies did not describe their methods in adequate detail. Combined oral contraceptive pill versus no pretreatmentWith antagonist cycles in both groups the rate of live birth or ongoing pregnancy was lower in the pretreatment group (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.95; 6 RCTs; 1335 women; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of pregnancy loss (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.26; 5 RCTs; 868 women; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence), multiple pregnancy (OR 2.21, 95% CI 0.53 to 9.26; 2 RCTs; 125 women; I² = 0%; low quality evidence), ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS; OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.40; 2 RCTs; 642 women; I² = 0%, low quality evidence), or ovarian cyst formation (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.75; 1 RCT; 64 women; very low quality evidence).In COCP plus antagonist cycles versus no pretreatment in agonist cycles, there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.25; 4 RCTs; 724 women; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence), multiple pregnancy (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.19; 4 RCTs; 546 women; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence), or OHSS (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.96; 2 RCTs; 290 women, I² = 0%), but there were fewer pregnancy losses in the pretreatment group (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.72; 5 RCTs; 780 women; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence). There were no data suitable for analysis on ovarian cyst formation.One small study comparing COCP versus no pretreatment in agonist cycles showed no clear difference between the groups for any of the reported outcomes. Progestogen versus no pretreatmentAll studies used the same protocol (antagonist, agonist or gonadotrophins) in both groups. There was insufficient evidence to determine any differences in rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (agonist: OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.65; 2 RCTs; 222 women; I² = 24%; low quality evidence; antagonist: OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.18 to 2.54; 1 RCT; 47 women; low quality evidence; gonadotrophins: OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.09 to 4.23; 1 RCT; 42 women; very low quality evidence), pregnancy loss (agonist: OR 2.26, 95% CI 0.67 to 7.55; 2 RCTs; 222 women; I² = 0%; low quality evidence; antagonist: OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.09; 1 RCT; 47 women; low quality evidence; gonadotrophins: OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 17.12; 1 RCT; 42 women; very low quality evidence) or multiple pregnancy (agonist: no data available; antagonist: OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.06 to 17.76; 1 RCT; 47 women; low quality evidence; gonadotrophins: no data available). Three studies, all using agonist cycles, reported ovarian cyst formation: rates were lower in the pretreatment group (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.32; 374 women; I² = 1%; moderate quality evidence). There were no data on OHSS. Oestrogen versus no pretreatmentIn antagonist or agonist cycles, there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (antagonist versus antagonist: OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.17; 2 RCTs; 502 women; I² = 0%; low quality evidence; antagonist versus agonist: OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.50; 2 RCTs; 242 women; I² = 0%; very low quality evidence), pregnancy loss (antagonist versus antagonist: OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.47; 1 RCT; 49 women; very low quality evidence; antagonist versus agonist: OR 1.59, 95% CI 0.62 to 4.06; 1 RCT; 220 women; very low quality evidence), multiple pregnancy (antagonist versus antagonist: no data available; antagonist versus agonist: OR 2.24, 95% CI 0.09 to 53.59; 1 RCT; 22 women; very low quality evidence) or OHSS (antagonist versus antagonist: no data available; antagonist versus agonist: OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.25 to 9.42; 1 RCT; 220 women). Ovarian cyst formation was not reported. Head-to-head comparisonsCOCP was compared with progestogen (1 RCT, 44 women), and with oestrogen (2 RCTs, 146 women), and progestogen was compared with oestrogen (1 RCT, 48 women), with an antagonist cycle in both groups. COCP in an agonist cycle was compared with oestrogen in an antagonist cycle (1 RCT, 25 women). Data were scant but there was no clear evidence that any of the groups differed in rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy, pregnancy loss or other adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Among women undergoing ovarian stimulation in antagonist protocols, COCP pretreatment was associated with a lower rate of live birth or ongoing pregnancy than no pretreatment. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy were influenced by pretreatment with progestogens or oestrogens, or by COCP pretreatment using other stimulation protocols. Findings on adverse events were inconclusive, except that progesterone pretreatment may reduce the risk of ovarian cysts in agonist cycles, and COCP in antagonist cycles may reduce the risk of pregnancy loss compared with no pretreatment in agonist cycles.

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.

Pretreatment of normal responders in fresh in vitro fertilization cycles: A comparison of transdermal estradiol and oral contraceptive pills

Objective

The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of pretreatment with transdermal estradiol (E₂) compared to oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) on controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) response in normal responders undergoing fresh in vitro fertilization (IVF)-embryo transfer (ET) cycles.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was performed of normal responders undergoing fresh IVF-ET cycles who received pretreatment with transdermal E₂ versus OCPs prior to fresh IVF-ET. The total days of ovarian stimulation, total dosage of gonadotropins, total number of oocytes, and mature oocytes retrieved were noted. Pregnancy outcomes after ET were also recorded.

Results

A total of 2,092 patients met the inclusion criteria: 1,057 and 1,035 patients in the transdermal E₂ and OCP groups, respectively. Patients in the OCP group had a longer duration of COS (10.7±1.63 days, p<0.01) than the E₂ group (9.92±1.94 days). Patients in the OCP group also required higher cumulative doses of gonadotropins (2,657.3±1,187.9 IU) than those in the E₂ group (2,550.1±1,270.2 IU, p=0.002). No statistically significant differences were found in the total and mature oocytes retrieved or in the rates of biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, spontaneous miscarriage, and live birth between the groups.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that compared to OCPs, pretreatment with transdermal E₂ is associated with a shorter duration of ovarian stimulation and lower gonadotropin utilization, without compromising the oocyte yield or pregnancy outcomes in normal-responder patients undergoing fresh IVF.

Hormonal contraceptives: pharmacology tailored to women's health

BACKGROUND

In recent years, several new oral contraceptives have become available. In some ways, they represent an evolution in terms of individualization and compliance on the part of women. The new formulations make it increasingly possible to prescribe a specific hormonal contraceptive on an individual basis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of PubMed was performed using the following combination of terms: 'oral contraceptives', 'estroprogestins' and 'combined oral contraceptive'. Only English-language papers published between January 2000 and July 2014 were included in our analysis. The present review analyzes all aspects of the choice of oral contraceptives in the different phases of a woman's life in detail.

RESULTS

Regarding the estrogen component, lowering the dose of ethinylestradiol (EE) helped reduce associated side effects. Natural estradiol is now available and represents a valid alternative to EE. And regarding progestins, the dose has changed over time, as well as the endocrine and metabolic characteristics. These are the fruit of much research into improvement of old products (19-nor-progesterone-derived progestins) with androgenic effects and testing of new molecules with improved metabolic neutrality in terms of insulin sensitivity and lipid parameters. New progestins were a genuine turning point because they greatly reduced major side effects, such as water retention, and their anti-androgenic properties made them indicated for all forms of hyperandrogenism associated with acne and mild hirsutism. The associations of estradiol/dienogest and estradiol/nomegestrol acetate are the most suitable contraceptives for women with abundant menstrual bleeding and can increase the number of potential users of hormonal contraception.

CONCLUSION

Progress in the provision of new oral contraceptives has improved the risk/benefit ratio, by increasing benefits and reducing risks. The present challenge is to tailor contraceptives to individual needs in terms of efficacy and protection of reproductive health.

Precycle Estradiol in Synchronization and Scheduling of Antagonist Cycles

Antagonist cycles have an inherent issue of lack of flexibility. As a result where batching of cycles is desired, it is not the preferred protocol in ART cycles. There is also the limitation of ovarian response in antagonist cycle due to the size heterogenesities of antral follicles at the start of stimulation. Among the different options available, use of estrogen in the luteal phase of the preceding cycle has definitely shown benefits with regard to better control of cycle as well as synchronization of follicles available for stimulation. The article gives a detailed analysis of the different options available for timing the egg collection in antagonist cycles, the advantages and drawbacks, and the method of use of estrogen. Whereas in the majority of the trials where estrogen pretreatment was used, the goal of scheduling of egg collection was definitely achieved, increased duration and dose of gonadotropin stimulation were required. There was definite advantage of higher oocyte yield in these cycles. The possibility of premature LH rise later during stimulation and subsequent poor implantation in these cycles has to be further evaluated. Nevertheless, batching of patient friendly antagonist cycles can be effectively possible by use of precycle estrogen treatment.

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.

Controlled Ovarian Stimulation Using Medroxyprogesterone Acetate and hMG in Patients With Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Treated for IVF: A Double-Blind Randomized Crossover Clinical Trial

Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) during ovarian stimulation is a current challenge for patients with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS). Our previous studies indicated that progestin can prevent premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surge or moderate/severe OHSS in the general subfertile population, both in the follicular-phase and luteal-phase ovarian stimulation but it is unclear if this is true for patients with PCOS. The aim of the article was to analyze cycle characteristics and endocrinological profiles using human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) in combination with medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) for PCOS patients who are undergoing IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatments and investigate the subsequently pregnancy outcomes of frozen embryo transfer (FET). In the randomized prospective controlled study, 120 PCOS patients undergoing IVF/ICSI were recruited and randomly classified into 2 groups according to the ovarian stimulation protocols: hMG and MPA (group A, n = 60) or short protocol (group B, n = 60). In the study group, hMG (150-225IU) and MPA (10 mg/d) were administered simultaneously beginning on cycle day 3. Ovulation was cotriggered by a gonadotropinreleasing hormone (GnRH) agonist (0.1 mg) and hCG (1000IU) when dominant follicles matured. A short protocol was used as a control. The primary end-point was the ongoing pregnancy rate per transfer and incidence of OHSS. Doses of hMG administrated in group A are significantly higher than those in the controls. LH suppression persisted during ovarian stimulation and no incidence of premature LH surge was seen in both groups. The fertilization rate and the ongoing pregnant rate in the study group were higher than that in the control. The number of oocytes retrieved, mature oocytes, clinical pregnancy rates per transfer, implantation rates, and cumulative pregnancy rates per patient were comparable between the 2 groups. The incidence of OHSS was low between the 2 groups, with no significant difference. The study showed that MPA has the advantages of an oral administration route, easy access, more control over LH levels. A possible reduction in the incidence of moderate or severe OHSS with the MPA protocol should be viewed with caution as the data is small. Large randomized trials with adequate sample size remain necessary.

Medroxyprogesterone acetate is an effective oral alternative for preventing premature luteinizing hormone surges in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the use of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) to prevent LH surge during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) and to compare cycle characteristics and pregnancy outcomes in subsequently frozen-thawed ET (FET) cycles.

DESIGN

A prospective controlled study.

SETTING

Tertiary-care academic medical center.

PATIENT(S)

Three hundred patients undergoing IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment.

INTERVENTION(S)

In the study group, hMG and MPA were administered simultaneously beginning on cycle day 3. Ovulation was induced with a GnRH agonist or cotriggered by a GnRH agonist and hCG when dominant follicles matured. A short protocol was used in the control group. Viable embryos were cryopreserved for later transfer in both protocols.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

The primary outcome measure was the number of oocytes retrieved. Secondary outcomes included the number of mature oocytes, the incidence of premature LH surge, and clinical pregnancy outcomes from FETs.

RESULT(S)

The number of oocytes retrieved in the study group was similar to those in the controls (9.9 ± 6.7 vs. 9.0 ± 6.0), and higher doses of hMG were administered. In the study group, LH suppression persisted during ovarian stimulation, and the incidence of premature LH surge was 0.7% (1/150). No statistically significant differences were found in the clinical pregnancy rates (47.8% vs. 43.3%), implantation rates (31.9% vs. 27.7%), and live-birth rates (42.6% vs. 35.5%) in the study group and controls.

CONCLUSION(S)

The results show that MPA is an effective oral alternative for the prevention of premature LH surge in woman undergoing COH. This finding will help establish a new regimen for ovarian stimulation in combination with embryo cryopreservation.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR-ONRC-14004419.

Scheduling cycles with gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol in in vitro fertilization: Is there a scope in batch in vitro fertilization?

In India, a practice of "Batch in vitro fertilization (IVF)" has evolved in many infertility centers in an effort to align infertility management with logistics. A "Batch IVF" is an approach where the menstrual cycles of multiple women are programmed, such that they can undergo all the processes; from stimulation until embryo transfer about the same time. In "Batch IVF", the day for initiating stimulation is calculated retrospectively from the day the visiting embryologist is available at the clinic (day of ovum pick-up). Aligning the cycles of multiple women with steroids followed by down regulation with long gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-A) is one of the currently employed methods for batching. There is sufficient evidence on scheduling cycles with steroids in GnRH-An protocol without compromising on the outcome. The objective of this paper is to provide evidence-based clinical concept on scheduling cycles in "Batch IVF" setup with GnRH-An protocol through literature review.

Steroids pretreatment in assisted reproduction cycles

The objective is to present an overview of trials and appreciate the relevant data on the effect of steroids pretreatment (oral contraceptives, 17β-estradiol and estradiol valerate) in assisted reproduction cycles. The subject of the study is to evaluate the clinical characteristics during steroids pretreatment cycles focused on the prevention of ovarian cysts, the positive contraceptive effect on the onset of regular period during long gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist protocol. In gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonist protocol the review is interested in supporting ovarian stimulation in low responders, the idea of cycle scheduling and improving treatment outcomes. The method is a review from MEDLINE/Pubmed database between 1994 and July 2012. We identified 15 randomised controlled trials (n=3069 patients). One trail (n=83 patients) assessed GnRH agonist protocol with or without steroids pretreatment, 8 trials (n=1884 patients) assessed GnRH antagonist protocols with or without steroids pretreatment and 6 trials (n=1102 patients) assessed GnRH antagonist protocols versus agonist ones with steroid pretreatment. Data demonstrates that oral contraceptives offer the effective prevention of functional ovarian cysts, the predictable onset of period during desensitisation. Existing data suggest that pretreatment with oral contraceptive pills or estradiol valerate give no advantage concerning number of oocytes or pregnancy rate. Pretreatment with oral contraceptive pills aiming to avoid weekend oocytes retrievals has to be more elucidated. In low responders oral contraceptive pill pretreatment may be beneficial in improving ovarian responses by reducing the amount of gonadotropins and the number of days required for ovarian stimulation. Current research indicates that also 17β-estradiol may be encouraging pretreatment in low responders and in cycle scheduling. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled 'Pregnancy and Steroids'.

Cycle scheduling for in vitro fertilization with oral contraceptive pills versus oral estradiol valerate: a randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Both oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) and estradiol (E2) valerate have been used to schedule gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles and, consequently, laboratory activities. However, there are no studies comparing treatment outcomes directly between these two pretreatment methods. This randomized controlled trial was aimed at finding differences in ongoing pregnancy rates between GnRH antagonist IVF cycles scheduled with OCPs or E2 valerate.

METHODS

Between January and May 2012, one hundred consecutive patients (nonobese, regularly cycling women 18-38 years with normal day 3 hormone levels and <3 previous IVF/ICSI attempts) undergoing IVF with the GnRH antagonist protocol were randomized to either the OCP or E2 pretreatment arms, with no restrictions such as blocking or stratification. Authors involved in data collection and analysis were blinded to group assignment. Fifty patients received OCP (30 μg ethinyl E2/150 μg levonorgestrel) for 12-16 days from day 1 or 2, and stimulation was started 5 days after stopping OCP. Similarly, 50 patients received 4 mg/day oral E2 valerate from day 20 for 5-12 days, until the day before starting stimulation.

RESULTS

Pretreatment with OCP (mean±SD, 14.5±1.7 days) was significantly longer than with E2 (7.8±1.9 days). Stimulation and embryological characteristics were similar. Ongoing pregnancy rates (46.0% vs. 44.0%; risk difference, -2.0% [95% CI -21.2% to 17.3%]), as well as implantation (43.5% vs. 47.4%), clinical pregnancy (50.0% vs. 48.0%), clinical miscarriage (7.1% vs. 7.7%), and live birth (42.0% vs. 40.0%) rates were comparable between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to directly compare these two methods of cycle scheduling in GnRH antagonist cycles. Our results fail to show statistically significant differences in ongoing pregnancy rates between pretreatment with OCP and E2 for IVF with the GnRH antagonist protocol. Although the study is limited by its sample size, our results may contribute to a future meta-analysis. An interesting future direction would be to extend our study to women with decreased ovarian reserve, as these are the patients in whom an increase in oocyte yield-due to the hypothetical beneficial effect of steroid pretreatment on follicular synchronization-could more easily be demonstrated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov http://NCT01501448.

Endometriosis and IVF: are agonists really better? Analysis of 1180 cycles with the propensity score matching

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcomes of patients with confirmed endometriosis undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF)-embryo transfer (ET) treated with either gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) or gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRHant) using the propensity score (PS) matching.

DESIGN

Observational, retrospective analysis from January 2000 to December 2010.

SETTING

Private tertiary fertility clinic.

PATIENT(S)

Patients with endometriosis confirmed by ultrasound or surgery (American Fertility Society; AFS grades I-IV) that underwent an IVF-ET, stimulated with standard controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) and GnRHa or GnRHant.

INTERVENTION(S)

A PS was assigned to all patients, which calculates the conditional probability of receiving a certain treatment; a higher PS (1) meant a higher probability of receiving treatment with GnRHa, and a lower PS (0) meant a higher probability of receiving GnRHant. The PS was calculated with a logistic regression model adjusted specifically for age, follicle stimulating hormone, antral follicle count and previous IVF cycles. All patients were divided into three groups according to their PS.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

pregnancy rate (PR) per cycle.

RESULTS

1180 patients were analyzed. Raw PR per cycle was 41.8% and 23.4%, and PR per ET was 44.3 and 27%, respectively. PR per cycle: 41.9 versus 30% in group A; in group B, 39.7% versus 36.4% and in group C, 15.4% versus 18.9%. The overall odds ratio for PR adjusted by PS was 1.10 [0.58-2.19].

CONCLUSIONS

After matching patients by PS, PR after COH with either GnRHa or GnRHant may be equally effective.

First intention IVF protocol for polycystic ovaries: does oral contraceptive pill pretreatment influence COH outcome?

BACKGROUND

Morphological aspect of polycystic ovaries (PCO) is a very common finding in an IVF center population: this includes PCOS patients identified in 18-25% of the couples presenting with infertility and so called "sonographic PCO only" the prevalence of which has been estimated as high as 33% in asymptomatic patients. Finding the optimal first intention IVF protocol for polycystic ovaries patients is still challenging in order to improve the controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) outcome while avoiding ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). It has been suggested that women with PCO would benefit from a longer period of pituitary down-regulation. The purpose of this study was to compare an extended duration of OCP pretreatment with a classic GnRH agonist protocol.

METHODS

A single center prospective non-randomized study was performed from January 2009 to December 2010 in the Lille University Hospital including 113 women diagnosed with PCO(S) according to the Rotterdam ultrasonographic criteria and undergoing their first IVF attempt. Comprehensive hormonal and ultra-sonographic assessments were collected during COH in these patients. LH and androgen suppression and dynamics of follicular growth were compared between the two protocols as well as the COH outcome in terms of oocyte/embryo number and quality, implantation and pregnancy rates.

RESULTS

No significant difference was observed between the two groups concerning dynamics of follicular growth and hormonal values. Clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates were significantly lower in the OCP group despite same oocyte and embryo quality. Nevertheless, the cumulative pregnancy rate did not differ between the two groups. The incidence of OHSS was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Extended duration of OCP pretreatment, as a first intention IVF protocol for PCO patients, does not improve the pattern of follicular growth nor the oocyte and embryo quality.

Emergency IVF versus ovarian tissue cryopreservation: decision making in fertility preservation for female cancer patients

Hundreds of thousands of women in their reproductive years are diagnosed with cancer each year. As the number of female patients who survive cancer increases, the demand for effective and individualized fertility preservation options grows. Currently there are limited clinical options for fertility preservation, and the paucity of publications describing clinical experience and outcomes data has limited accessibility to these options. Decision making for patients diagnosed with cancer requires up-to-date knowledge of the efficacy and safety of available techniques. This article describes a step-by-step approach to evaluation of the cancer patient and presents an accumulation of clinical experience with challenges unique to patients with breast cancer and leukemia. Current data on reproductive outcomes of fertility preservation techniques are examined, demonstrating increasing evidence that these techniques are becoming effective enough to offer routinely to patients facing gonadotoxic cancer therapies, including those still considered to be "experimental."

Optimal usage of the GnRH antagonists: a review of the literature

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists, which became commercially available from 1999, have been used for the prevention of premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surges in controlled ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. This review focuses on the recent literature on the use of GnRH antagonists and provides guidelines for optimal use in light of increasing evidence showing that GnRH antagonists are safe and effective, allowing flexibility of treatment in a wide range of patient populations. This includes patients undergoing first-line controlled ovarian stimulation, poor responders, and women diagnosed with polycystic ovary syndrome. The GnRH antagonist offers a viable alternative to the long agonists, providing a shorter duration of treatment with fewer injections and with no adverse effects on assisted reproductive technology outcome. This results in a significantly lower amount of gonadotropins required, which is likely to lead to improved patient compliance.

Endocrinological insights into different in vitro fertilization treatment aspects

The science of reproductive endocrinology/in vitro fertilization (IVF) has moved forward considerably since the first IVF baby was born in 1978. IVF was originally indicated for women with tubal factor infertility, but it has now become the treatment for couples with unexplained subfertility, male subfertility, cervical factor, failed ovulation induction, endometriosis or unilateral tubal pathology. IVF was initially performed with the single dominant ovarian follicle produced during a spontaneous menstrual cycle. This was very inefficient and pregnancy rates were dismal. Consequently, superovulation protocols using parenteral gonadotrophins to induce maturation of multiple follicles were soon adopted worldwide. In addition, any supernumerary embryos remaining after embryo transfer may be cryopreserved for future embryo transfers without the need for another fresh IVF cycle. A greater understanding of IVF endocrinology has led to improved IVF pregnancy outcomes and satisfaction for the anxious parents. However, with the greater success of IVF treatment, new complications associated with the treatment arise, namely the ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Ovarian hyperstimulation can be associated with severe morbidity and may be even fatal. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome is an iatrogenic condition secondary to medical stimulation of the ovary, and was virtually unknown until IVF treatment was initiated. This article will discuss the recent developments in IVF treatment endocrinology and protocols, as well as prevention/treatment of its complications.

GnRH antagonist multiple dose protocol with oral contraceptive pill pretreatment in poor responders undergoing IVF/ICSI

Objective

To investigate the effectiveness of GnRH antagonist multiple-dose protocol (MDP) with oral contraceptive pill (OCP) pretreatment in poor responders undergoing IVF/ICSI, compared with GnRH antagonist MDP without OCP pretreatment and GnRH agonist low-dose long protocol (LP).

Methods

A total of 120 poor responders were randomized into three groups according to controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) options; GnRH antagonist MDP after OCP pretreatment (group 1), GnRH antagonist MDP without OCP pretreatment (group 2) or GnRH agonist luteal low-dose LP without OCP pretreatment (group 3). Patients allocated in group 1 were pretreated with OCP for 21days in the cycle preceding COS, and ovarian stimulation using recombinant human FSH (rhFSH) was started 5 days after discontinuation of OCP.

Results

There were no differences in patients' characteristics among three groups. Total dose and days of rhFSH used for COS were significantly higher in group 3 than in group 1 or 2. The numbers of mature oocytes, fertilized oocytes and grade I, II embryos were significantly lower in group 2 than in group 1 or 3. There were no significant differences in the clinical pregnancy rate and implantation rate among three groups.

Conclusion

GnRH antagonist MDP with OCP pretreatment is at least as effective as GnRH agonist low-dose LP in poor responders and can benefit the poor responders by reducing the amount and duration of FSH required for follicular maturation.

Pretreatment with oral contraceptive pills does not influence the pregnancy rate in the long leuprolide acetate protocol

BACKGROUND

To analyze the influence of oral contraceptive pill (OCP) pretreatment in intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles among normoresponders in whom leuprolide acetate is preferred for that kind of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist.

METHODS

Between March 2001 and January 2010, a total of 821 cycles were pretreated with OCP in luteal-long leuprolide acetate in the IVF Center, Faculty of Medicine, University of Hacettepe. Of these, a total of 169 consecutive patients were selected for the final analyses according to the selection criteria (OCP group) and compared with 349 age-matched controls (Control group). The normoresponders were defined by the presence of 6-15 antral follicles in both ovaries.

RESULTS

Female age, body mass index, duration of infertility and antral follicle count were similar among both groups. Although the total dose of FSH used and duration of stimulation were similar, the maximal serum estradiol concentrations were higher in the OCP group than in the Control group (2,630.3 ± 1,568.0 vs. 2,166.5 ± 1,259.7 pg/ml, p = 0.001). The mean numbers of metaphase-II oocytes were 11.0 ± 6.2 versus 9.4 ± 5.2 in the OCP and Control groups, respectively (p = 0.004). The mean number of available day 3 embryos having ≥7 blastomeres was also higher in the OCP group (4.4 ± 3.3 vs. 3.5 ± 3.1, p = 0.013). However, the embryo transfer cancellation rate was noted to be higher in the OCP group, which is mainly due to fertilization failure and arrest during embryogenesis (6.5 vs. 2.9%, p = 0.049). The clinical pregnancy (36.7 vs. 38.3%) and implantation rates (21.8 vs. 20.6%) were comparable.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that although pretreatment with an OCP might exaggerate ovarian response, the pregnancy rate does not fluctuate in leuprolide acetate cycles among normoresponders.

[Influence duration of the use of estrogens beyond the menses in estradiol IVF antagonist programming cycles]

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate by the birth rate the impact of the number of days of estrogens continued beyond the menses in a four days estradiol IVF antagonist programming cycles.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective study from September 2004 to January 2009 among women of age ranging between 25 and 38 years. Four milligrams of provames is prescribed 3 to 5 days before the theorical menses and continued until the beginning day of stimulation, which is distributed equitably between Thursday and Sunday. The birth rate is evaluated according to the number of days of estrogen continued beyond the menses within a limit from 1 to 8.

RESULTS

No significant difference appears neither in the duration of stimulation, in the quantity of gonadotrophin, the oocytes pick up, nor in the rate of birth between the groups.

CONCLUSION

The programming by estrogens of the antagonist IVF cycles implies a variable number of days of estrogens continued beyond the menses, which does not seem to affect the birth rate.

Predictive factors of ovarian response and clinical outcome after IVF/ICSI following a rFSH/GnRH antagonist protocol with or without oral contraceptive pre-treatment

BACKGROUND

Prediction of ovarian response prior to the first controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) cycle is useful in determining the optimal starting dose of recombinant FSH (rFSH). However, potentially predictive factors may be subject to inter-cycle variability and many patients are pre-treated with oral contraceptives (OC) for scheduling purposes. Our objective was to determine predictive factors of ovarian response for patients undergoing COS with rFSH in a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol and to determine the inter-cycle variability of these factors.

METHODS

In this multinational trial, 442 patients were randomized to receive either OC treatment or no treatment prior to their first COS cycle. For candidate predictive factors, patient characteristics were collected at screening, and endocrine and sonographic data were collected during the early follicular phase of the two subsequent cycles. A treatment regimen of 200 IU rFSH and 0.25 mg ganirelix was applied during the second cycle. Predictive factors of ovarian response and of too low (<6 oocytes) or too high (>18 oocytes) ovarian responses were determined using stepwise linear regression and stepwise logistic regression, respectively.

RESULTS

Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) and basal FSH were statistically significant predictors of the number of oocytes retrieved and of an excessive ovarian response. For low ovarian response, AMH was the only significant predictive factor. In the non-OC group, the predictive value was higher than in the OC group and higher at the early follicular phase of the stimulation cycle than of the previous cycle. The inter-cycle variation for AMH was low compared with the inter-cycle variation of other hormones. Between the two groups, there were no differences in the number or quality of embryos obtained or transferred, but the implantation rate was significantly lower in the OC group (24.1 versus 30.1%, P= 0.03), resulting in an ongoing pregnancy rate of 26.3% compared with 35.7% in the non-OC group (P= 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The best predictive model of ovarian response was in the non-OC group and included both AMH and basal FSH determined at the early follicular phase of the stimulation cycle. In the proceeding cycle, AMH alone had sufficient predictive value since it was not affected by inter-cycle variability or OC pretreatment.

Comparison between the gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol and the gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist long protocol for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in the first in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer cycle in an unspecified population of infertile couples

Purpose

We aimed to compare the efficacy of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol and a GnRH agonist long protocol used in the first in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) cycle in an unspecified population of infertile couples.

Methods

Fifty and 34 patients were treated with a GnRH agonist long protocol (agonist group) and GnRH antagonist protocol (antagonist group), respectively, in the first treatment cycle. The primary and secondary outcome measures were cumulative live birth rates after fresh and cryopreserved-thawed ETs and incidence of grades II and III ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), respectively.

Results

No significant differences were observed in clinical pregnancy rates (38.0 vs. 32.4%) and live birth rates (22.0 vs. 23.5%), which included both fresh and cryopreserved-thawed ETs, between the 2 groups. However, the incidence of grade III OHSS was significantly lower with the GnRH antagonist protocol than the GnRH agonist long protocol.

Conclusions

Used in the first IVF-ET cycle in an unspecified population of infertile patients, the GnRH antagonist protocol showed the same clinical outcome as the GnRH agonist long protocol.

Administration of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist during the 3 days before the initiation of the in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment cycle: impact on ovarian stimulation. A pilot study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the impact on the number of cumulus-oocyte complexes (COC) when a 3-day course of GnRH antagonist treatment precedes the initiation of controlled ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins in a GnRH antagonist protocol for IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

PATIENT(S)

Sixty-nine women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for IVF/ICSI.

INTERVENTION(S)

The control group (n = 36) received a standard treatment with daily injections of recombinant FSH (rFSH), starting on day 2 of the cycle at a dose of 150-225 IU/day, and GnRH antagonists from cycle day 7 onward. In the pretreatment group (n = 33), a GnRH antagonist was administered from day 2 of the menstrual cycle onward during 3 consecutive days; thereafter controlled ovarian stimulation was initiated with the same protocol as used in the control group.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

The primary endpoint was the number of COCs at egg retrieval.

RESULT(S)

Both groups had comparable baseline characteristics. The duration of rFSH stimulation and consumption of gonadotropins were similar in both groups. The number of COCs was higher in the pretreatment group (12.8; SD, 7.8) compared with in the control group (9.9; SD, 4.9), although this increment was not significant (between-group difference of 2.9 [95% confidence interval {CI} -0.2 to 6.0]). The ongoing pregnancy rates per started cycle of 14/33 (42%) versus 12/36 (33%) for pretreatment versus control did not differ significantly (between-group difference, 9.1%; 95% CI, -13% to 30%).

CONCLUSION(S)

Among women under 36 years old, early follicular phase GnRH antagonist pretreatment in a fixed GnRH antagonist protocol results in a trend toward a higher number of retrieved oocytes but does not yield significantly higher pregnancy rates.

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.