The routine use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists prior to in vitro fertilization and gamete intrafallopian transfer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Development and validation of a prediction model for suboptimal ovarian response in polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) patients undergoing GnRH-antagonist protocol in IVF/ICSI cycles

BACKGROUND

PCOS patients with unexpectedly low oocyte yield following conventional ovarian stimulation are referred to as suboptimal responders. However, identifying suboptimal responders presents a significant challenge within reproductive medicine and limited research exists on the occurrence of suboptimal response. This analysis aimed to develop a predictive model of suboptimal response during in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) treatments in PCOS patients.

METHODS

This retrospective study involved a cohort of 313 PCOS patients undergoing their first IVF/ICSI cycle from 2019 to 2022. Univariate logistic regression analyses, least absolute shrinkage, selection operator regression analysis, and recursive feature elimination were employed to identify relevant characteristics and construct predictive models. Moreover, a nomogram was constructed based on the best model. Receiver operating characteristic curves, decision curve analysis (DCA), and calibration curves were used to evaluate the model.

RESULTS

The predictors included in the model were age, Anti-Mullerian hormone, antral follicle count, and basal follicle-stimulating hormone. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.7702 (95% confidence interval 0.7157-0.8191). The AUC, along with the DCA curve and calibration curve, demonstrated a satisfactory level of congruence and discrimination ability.

CONCLUSION

The nomogram effectively predicted the probability of suboptimal response in PCOS patients undergoing gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol during IVF/ICSI treatment.

Assisted Reproductive Technology in the Presence of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: Current Evidence and Knowledge Gaps

OBJECTIVE

In this narrative review, we discuss the current evidence as well as the knowledge gaps concerning assisted reproductive technology (ART) indications, protocols, and results in the presence of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).

METHODS

An electronic literature search was performed for English-language publications in the last decade in databases such as PubMed, Medline, the Web of Sciences, Embase, and Scopus.

RESULTS

We found evidence that ovarian steroidogenesis and folliculogenesis are deeply altered by PCOS; however, the oocyte quality and pregnancy rates after ART are not affected. Patients with PCOS are more sensitive to the action of exogenous gonadotropins and more likely to develop ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. This risk can be mitigated by the adoption of the gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocols for pituitary blockade and ovarian stimulation, along with frozen embryo transfer, without compromising the odds of achieving a live birth. Pregnancy complications, such as miscarriage, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, and very preterm birth, are more frequent in the presence of PCOS, requiring more intense prenatal care. It remains uncertain whether weight reduction or insulin sensitizers used before ART are beneficial for the treatment outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Although PCOS is not a drawback for ART treatments, the patients need special care to avoid complications. More in-depth studies are needed to uncover the mechanisms of follicular growth, gamete maturation, and endometrial differentiation during ART procedures in the presence of PCOS.

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.

A reappraisal of ovarian stimulation strategies used in assisted reproductive technology

Ovarian stimulation is a fundamental step in assisted reproductive technology (ART) with the intention of inducing ovarian follicle development prior to timed intercourse or intra-uterine insemination and facilitating the retrieval of multiple oocytes during a single in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle. The basis of ovarian stimulation includes the administration of exogenous gonadotropins, with or without pre-treatment with oral hormonal therapy. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist or antagonist is given in addition to the gonadotropins to prevent a premature rise of endogenous luteinizing hormone that would in turn lead to premature ovulation. With the advancement in technology, various stimulation protocols have been devised to cater for different patient needs. However, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and its serious complications may occur following ovarian stimulation. It is also evident that suboptimal ovarian stimulation strategies may have a negative impact on oogenesis, embryo quality, endometrial receptivity, and reproductive outcomes over recent years. This review describes the various forms of pre-treatment for ovarian stimulation and stimulation protocols, and aims to provide clinicians with the latest available evidence.

Identification of common genetic polymorphisms associated with down-regulated gonadotropin levels in an exome-wide association study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether common genetic polymorphisms are associated with gonadotropin levels after down-regulation with daily gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist and whether the polymorphisms of candidate variants influence the ovarian response to exogenous gonadotropins.

DESIGN

Genetic association study.

SETTING

University-affiliated in vitro fertilization center.

PATIENTS

Subjects enrolled in an exploratory exome-wide association study (n = 862), a replication exome-wide association study (n = 86), and a classifier validation study (n = 148) were recruited from September 2016 to October 2018, September 2019 to September 2020, and January 2021 to December 2021, respectively. The included patients were aged ≤40 years and had a basal follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) ≤12 IU/L.

INTERVENTIONS

All participants received a luteal phase down-regulation long protocol. Genome DNA was extracted from the peripheral blood leukocytes. For the exploratory and replication cohorts, exome sequencing was conducted on a HiSeq 2500 sequencing platform. The multiplex polymerase chain reaction amplification technique and next-generation sequencing also were performed in the exploratory and replication cohorts. For the samples of the validation cohort, Sanger sequencing was performed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary endpoint was the gonadotropin levels after down-regulation, and the secondary endpoints were hormone levels and follicle diameters during stimulation, the total dose of FSH, duration of FSH stimulation, number of oocytes retrieved, and clinical pregnancy rate.

RESULTS

In the exploratory cohort, we identified that FSHB rs6169 (P=2.71 × 10-24) and its single-nucleotide polymorphisms in high linkage disequilibrium were associated with the down-regulated FSH level. The same locus was confirmed in the replication cohort. Women carrying the C allele of FSHB rs6169 exhibited higher average estradiol level during stimulation (P=6.82 × 10-5), shorter duration of stimulation, and less amount of exogenous FSH (Pduration=0.0002; Pdose=0.0024). In the independent validation set, adding rs6169 genotypes into the prediction model for FSH level after down-regulation enhanced the area under the curve from 0.560 to 0.712 in a logistic regression model, and increased prediction accuracy by 41.05% when a support vector machine classifier was applied.

CONCLUSION

The C allele of FSHB rs6169 is a susceptibility site for the relatively high level of FSH after down-regulation, which may be associated with increased ovarian FSH sensitivity.

Clinical applications of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues: a broad impact on reproductive medicine

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) is central to the control of the entire hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis. Manipulation of GnRH, in turn, regulates pituitary response and ovarian hormone production. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues have revolutionized assisted reproductive technology and gynecologic practice. The recent advent of oral GnRH antagonists with an inherent rapid onset of action continues to transform the treatment options available for several common gynecologic conditions, including endometriosis and fibroids. Herein, we review neuroendocrine GnRH activity and discuss modulation of the reproductive axis by GnRH analogues for diverse clinical applications.

Conventional GnRH antagonist protocols versus long GnRH agonist protocol in IVF/ICSI cycles of polycystic ovary syndrome women: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues are commonly used in clinical practice to prevent premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surge during In-Vitro Fertilization/ Intra-Cytoplasmic Sperm Injection (IVF/ICSI) cycles. This review aimed to summarize the available evidence comparing the effects of conventional GnRH antagonist protocols, the most commonly used GnRH antagonist protocols, and GnRH agonist protocols on IVF/ICSI outcomes in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). A comprehensive electronic search was carried out in Pubmed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, TRIP, ClinicalTrials.gov and ISRCTN registry from inception until 24 November 2020 without any language or date restrictions. In addition, reference lists of eligible studies and previous meta-analyses were hand-searched to identify relevant studies. Eligible randomized controlled trials were those designed to compare the effects of conventional GnRH antagonist protocols and GnRH agonist protocols on IVF/ICSI outcomes in PCOS subjects. The Cochrane ROB 2.0 tool was used to assess the risk of bias of each study, and the GRADE assessment was used to evaluate the overall quality of evidence. Data synthesis and analyses were done using Review Manager 5.3 with the assistance of Revman Web. A random-effects model was used for all meta-analysis. Dichotomous outcomes were reported as Relative Risk (RR) and continuous outcomes as Weighted Mean Difference (WMD), both with 95% CIs. The primary outcomes were Live birth rate, Ongoing pregnancy rate, and Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) rate. Other IVF outcomes were considered secondary outcomes. We included ten studies with 1214 randomized PCOS women. Using GnRH antagonist protocols led to a significantly lower OHSS rate (RR = 0.58; 95% CI: [0.44 to 0.77], P = 0.0002), shorter stimulation duration (WMD = - 0.91; 95% CI: [-1.45 to - 0.37] day, P = 0.0009), lower gonadotropin consumption (WMD = - 221.36; 95% CI: [- 332.28 to - 110.45] IU, P < 0.0001), lower E2 levels on hCG day (WMD = - 259.21; 95% CI: [- 485.81 to - 32.60] pg/ml, P = 0.02), thinner endometrial thickness on hCG day (WMD = - 0.73; 95% CI: [- 1.17 to - 0.29] mm, P = 0.001), and lower number of retrieved oocytes (WMD = - 1.82; 95% CI: [- 3.48 to - 0.15] oocytes, P = 0.03). However, no significant differences in live birth rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, multiple pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate and cycle cancellation rate were seen between the GnRH antagonist protocols and the long GnRH agonist one. Although more cycles were cancelled due to poor ovarian response in the GnRH antagonist protocol (RR = 4.63; 95% CI: [1.49 to 14.41], P = 0.008), similar rates of cancellation due to risk of OHSS were noticed in both groups. The differences in IVF/ICSI outcomes may arise from the different patterns of gonadotropins suppression that the GnRH analogues exhibit during the early follicular phase of IVF/ICSI cycles and the divergent direct impacts of these analogues on ovaries and endometrial receptivity. The main evidence limitation was Imprecision. Conventional GnRH antagonist protocols represent a safer and more cost-effective treatment choice for PCOS women undergoing IVF/ICSI cycles than the standard long GnRH agonist protocol without compromising the IVF/ICSI clinical outcomes. The study had no sources of financial support and was prospectively registered at PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) under registration number (CRD42021242476).

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.

Exogenous progesterone for LH surge prevention is redundant in ovarian stimulation protocols

During ovarian stimulation for IVF-embryo transfer treatment, a premature LH surge may lead to progesterone elevation that disrupts endometrial maturation and affects the probability of pregnancy following fresh embryo transfer. Preventing this LH surge and progesterone elevation using gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues is considered a standard practice. The same policy applies to cycles in which the 'freeze-all' protocol has been selected from the outset (e.g. donors), but the need for this has not been discussed. Moreover, in 'freeze-all' cycles, exogenous progesterone administration tends to replace GnRH antagonists, without reducing efficacy after embryo transfer in frozen-thawed cycles. Nevertheless, as exogenous progesterone is expected to have the same impact on the endometrium as endogenous progesterone, it is clear that, unlike in fresh cycles, in 'freeze-all' cycles an endogenous LH surge prevention does not seem necessary. Therefore, both GnRH antagonists and exogenous progesterone appear to be redundant in 'freeze-all' cycles, and in this context the indications for the use of GnRH analogues in ovarian stimulation protocols need to be revisited.

Meta-analysis of GnRH-antagonists versus GnRH-agonists in poor responder protocols

PURPOSE

Considering the insufficient evidence supporting an ideal protocol for poor responder management in IVF/ICSI cycles, the aim of the current meta-analysis was to compare GnRH-antagonist versus GnRH-agonist protocols in poor responders, evaluating effectiveness and safety.

METHODS

Meta-analysis was conducted using Medcalc 16.8 version software. Standardized mean differences (SMD), odds ratios (OR), and the respective 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined appropriately. The Cochran Q statistic and the I² test were used to assess studies' heterogeneity.

RESULTS

GnRH-agonists were shown to correlate with fewer cancelled IVF/ICSI cycles (p = 0.044, OR = 1.268 > 1, 95% CI 1.007, 1.598), a larger number of embryos transferred (p = 0.008, SMD = - 0.230, 95% CI - 0.400, - 0.0599), and more clinical pregnancies (p = 0.018, OR = 0.748 < 1, 95% CI 0.588, 0.952). However, GnRH-antagonists resulted in a significantly shorter duration of ovarian stimulation (p = 0.007, SMD = - 0.426. 95% CI - 0.736, - 0.115). The number of oocytes and mature oocytes retrieved in both protocols did not differ statistically (p = 0.216, SMD = - 0.130, 95% CI - 0.337, 0.0763 and p = 0.807, SMD = - 0.0203, 95% CI - 0.183, 0.142, respectively). Moreover, a high heterogeneity among studies was observed regarding duration of ovarian stimulation (I² = 90.6%), number of oocytes (I² = 82.83%)/mature oocytes retrieved (I² = 70.39%), and embryos transferred (I² = 72.83%).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the present meta-analysis, agonist protocols could be suggested as a first choice approach, in terms of effectiveness. Due to the high studies' heterogeneity, results should be considered with caution. Accordingly, larger cohort studies and meta-analyses like the present one will enhance the robustness of the emerging results to identify the ideal protocol for poor responders.

The appraisal of body content (ABC) trial: obesity does not significantly impact gamete production in infertile men and women

PURPOSE

As obesity becomes increasingly prevalent, its impact on fertility has been a subject of great debate. Nearly all prior research is retrospective and evaluates obesity utilizing body mass index (BMI), which may overestimate adiposity in individuals with a greater amount of lean muscle and underestimate adiposity in those with less muscle mass.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated 2013 couples undergoing infertility treatment with in vitro fertilization (IVF). Percent body fat (%BF) was measured by use of a bioelectric impedance analysis (BIA) scale at baseline. BMI was also determined. Ovarian reserve parameters, ovarian response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation, and semen analyses were measured in correlation with their %BF and BMI.

RESULTS

Females classified as obese based on %BF or BMI had lower serum FSH. However, when the analysis was limited to women without PCOS (n = 1706), obesity based on %BF or BMI was associated with lower serum AMH. Female obesity-regardless of a PCOS diagnosis-did not affect number of mature oocytes retrieved. Males who were in obese %BF category were found to have lower TMSC compared with normal weight counterparts (p < 0.05); however, the observed decrease was not significant enough to limit the success of assisted reproductive technologies.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that while obesity may affect ovarian reserve in women variably depending on presence of PCOS, it does not affect number of mature oocytes available after COH. Similarly, while a high %BF in males is associated with lower TMSC, the observed difference is unlikely to affect IVF outcomes.

Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation

BACKGROUND

Tubal disease accounts for 20% of infertility cases. Hydrosalpinx, caused by distal tubal occlusion leading to fluid accumulation in the tube(s), is a particularly severe form of tubal disease negatively affecting the outcomes of assisted reproductive technology (ART). It is thought that tubal surgery may improve the outcome of ART in women with hydrosalpinges.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of tubal surgery in women with hydrosalpinges prior to undergoing conventional in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, DARE, and two trial registers on 8 January 2020, together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing surgical treatment versus no surgical treatment, or comparing surgical interventions head-to-head, in women with tubal disease prior to undergoing IVF.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used Cochrane's standard methodological procedures. The primary outcomes were live birth rate (LBR) and surgical complication rate per woman randomised. Secondary outcomes included clinical, multiple and ectopic pregnancy rates, miscarriage rates and mean numbers of oocytes retrieved and of embryos obtained.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 parallel-design RCTs, involving a total of 1386 participants. The included trials compared different types of tubal surgery (salpingectomy, tubal occlusion or transvaginal aspiration of hydrosalpingeal fluid) to no tubal surgery, or individual interventions to one another. We assessed no studies as being at low risk of bias across all domains, with the main limitations being lack of blinding, wide confidence intervals and low event and sample sizes. We used GRADE methodology to rate the quality of the evidence. Apart from one moderate-quality result in one review comparison, the evidence provided by these 11 trials ranged between very low- to low-quality. Salpingectomy versus no tubal surgery No included study reported on LBR for this comparison. We are uncertain of the effect of salpingectomy on surgical complications such as the rate of conversion to laparotomy (Peto odds ratio (OR) 5.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 303.69; one RCT; n = 204; very low-quality evidence) and pelvic infection (Peto OR 5.80, 95% CI 0.11 to 303.69; one RCT; n = 204; very low-quality evidence). Salpingectomy probably increases clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) versus no surgery (risk ratio (RR) 2.02, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.82; four RCTs; n = 455; I² = 42.5%; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that in women with a CPR of approximately 19% without tubal surgery, the rate with salpingectomy lies between 27% and 52%. Proximal tubal occlusion versus no surgery No study reported on LBR and surgical complication rate for this comparison. Tubal occlusion may increase CPR compared to no tubal surgery (RR 3.21, 95% CI 1.72 to 5.99; two RCTs; n = 209; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that with a CPR of approximately 12% without tubal surgery, the rate with tubal occlusion lies between 21% and 74%. Transvaginal aspiration of hydrosalpingeal fluid versus no surgery No study reported on LBR for this comparison, and there was insufficient evidence to identify a difference in surgical complication rate between groups (Peto OR not estimable; one RCT; n = 176). We are uncertain whether transvaginal aspiration of hydrosalpingeal fluid increases CPR compared to no tubal surgery (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.55; three RCTs; n = 311; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Laparoscopic proximal tubal occlusion versus laparoscopic salpingectomy We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic proximal tubal occlusion versus laparoscopic salpingectomy on LBR (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.95; one RCT; n = 165; very low-quality evidence) and CPR (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.07; three RCTs; n = 347; I² = 77%; very low-quality evidence). No study reported on surgical complication rate for this comparison. Transvaginal aspiration of hydrosalpingeal fluid versus laparoscopic salpingectomy No study reported on LBR for this comparison, and there was insufficient evidence to identify a difference in surgical complication rate between groups (Peto OR not estimable; one RCT; n = 160). We are uncertain of the effect of transvaginal aspiration of hydrosalpingeal fluid versus laparoscopic salpingectomy on CPR (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.07; one RCT; n = 160; very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate-quality evidence that salpingectomy prior to ART probably increases the CPR compared to no surgery in women with hydrosalpinges. When comparing tubal occlusion to no intervention, we found that tubal occlusion may increase CPR, although the evidence was of low quality. We found insufficient evidence of any effect on procedure- or pregnancy-related adverse events when comparing tubal surgery to no intervention. Importantly, none of the studies reported on long term fertility outcomes. Further high-quality trials are required to definitely determine the impact of tubal surgery on IVF and pregnancy outcomes of women with hydrosalpinges, particularly for LBR and surgical complications; and to investigate the relative efficacy and safety of the different surgical modalities in the treatment of hydrosalpinges prior to ART.

Efficacy and safety of recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer

To compare the ovarian responses after administration of two recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (r-FSH) preparations under gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogue downregulation, we conducted a phase 3, randomized, multicenter, assessor-blind, active-controlled, parallel group study. The primary outcome was the number of oocytes retrieved. The secondary outcomes included total dose and duration of r-FSH administered, oocyte quality, blood estradiol levels, follicular development, fertilization rates, implantation rates, and pregnancy rates (biochemical, clinical, and ongoing). A total of 451 patients with infertility were randomized to receive either Follitrope™ Prefilled Syringe or Gonal-F® Pen for ovarian stimulation. The mean number of oocytes retrieved was 14.9 in the FollitropeTM Prefilled Syringe group, and 12.8 in the Gonal-F® Pen group. The 95% confidence interval in the oocyte number difference between the groups was [-0.1, 4.2], demonstrating that FollitropeTM Prefilled Syringe was not inferior to Gonal-F® Pen. The clinical pregnancy rates (FollitropeTM Prefilled Syringe vs. Gonal-F® Pen: 55.4% vs. 51.9%) and ongoing pregnancy rates (44.1% vs. 43.0%) were similar between the groups. No clinically significant adverse events were observed in either group. In summary, our study indicates that FollitropeTM Prefilled Syringe is safe and efficacious for ovarian stimulation.

Ovarian stimulation for freeze-all IVF cycles: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Freeze-all IVF cycles are becoming increasingly prevalent for a variety of clinical indications. However, the actual treatment objectives and preferred treatment regimens for freeze-all cycles have not been clearly established.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

We aimed to conduct a systematic review of all aspects of ovarian stimulation for freeze-all cycles.

SEARCH METHODS

A comprehensive search in Medline, Embase and The Cochrane Library was performed. The search strategy included keywords related to freeze-all, cycle segmentation, cumulative live birth rate, preimplantation genetic diagnosis, preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy, fertility preservation, oocyte donation and frozen-thawed embryo transfer. We included relevant studies published in English from 2000 to 2018.

OUTCOMES

Our search generated 3292 records. Overall, 69 articles were included in the final review. Good-quality evidence indicates that in freeze-all cycles the cumulative live birth rate increases as the number of oocytes retrieved increases. Although the risk of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is virtually eliminated in freeze-all cycles, there are certain risks associated with retrieval of large oocyte cohorts. Therefore, ovarian stimulation should be planned to yield between 15 and 20 oocytes. The early follicular phase is currently the preferred starting point for ovarian stimulation, although luteal phase stimulation can be used if necessary. The improved safety associated with the GnRH antagonist regimen makes it the regimen of choice for ovarian stimulation in freeze-all cycles. Ovulation triggering with a GnRH agonist almost completely eliminates the risk of OHSS without affecting oocyte and embryo quality and is therefore the trigger of choice. The addition of low-dose hCG in a dual trigger has been suggested to improve oocyte and embryo quality, but further research in freeze-all cycles is required. Moderate-quality evidence indicates that in freeze-all cycles, a moderate delay of 2–3 days in ovulation triggering may result in the retrieval of an increased number of mature oocytes without impairing the pregnancy rate. There are no high-quality studies evaluating the effects of sustained supraphysiological estradiol (E2) levels on the safety and efficacy of freeze-all cycles. However, no significant adverse effects have been described. There is conflicting evidence regarding the effect of late follicular progesterone elevation in freeze-all cycles.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

Ovarian stimulation for freeze-all cycles is different in many aspects from conventional stimulation for fresh IVF cycles. Optimisation of ovarian stimulation for freeze-all cycles should result in enhanced treatment safety along with improved cumulative live birth rates and should become the focus of future studies.

Towards complication-free assisted reproduction technology

Assisted reproductive technology (ART) has vastly improved over the last 40 years, from a frequently unsuccessful and complicated procedure requiring hospital admission and routine laparoscopy to a fairly simple outpatient technique with relatively high success rates. However, it is important to stress that ART is not without risk and medical complications may still occur. The incidence of most of these ART-related complications is associated with how women undergo ovarian stimulation. For this reason, physicians should be aware that a carefully thought-out ovarian stimulation protocol and cycle monitoring are of paramount importance to maximise the success of the treatment while avoiding potentially life-threating complications to occur in this frequently otherwise healthy patient population. This review discusses the rationale and evolution of ovarian stimulation strategies over the years and the current developments towards finding a balance between the retrieval of a sufficient number of oocytes and ART-related complication prevention.

Oral medications including clomiphene citrate or aromatase inhibitors with gonadotropins for controlled ovarian stimulation in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation

BACKGROUND

Gonadotropins are the most commonly used medications for controlled ovarian stimulation in in vitro fertilisation (IVF). However, they are expensive and invasive, and are associated with the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Recent calls for more patient-friendly regimens have led to growing interest in the use of clomiphene citrate (CC) and aromatase inhibitors with or without gonadotropins to reduce the burden of hormonal injections. It is currently unknown whether regimens using CC or aromatase inhibitors such as letrozole (Ltz) are as effective as gonadotropins alone.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of regimens including oral induction medication (such as clomiphene citrate or letrozole) versus gonadotropin-only regimens for controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register (searched January 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL CRSO), MEDLINE (1946 to January 2017), Embase (1980 to January 2017), and reference lists of relevant articles. We also searched trials registries ClinicalTrials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov/) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/trialsearch/Default.aspx). We handsearched relevant conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcomes were live-birth rate (LBR) and OHSS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and Peto odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes. We analyzed the general population of women undergoing IVF treatment and (as a separate analysis) women identified as poor responders. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 studies in the updated review. Most of the new trials in the updated review included poor responders and evaluated Ltz protocols. We could perform meta-analysis with data from 22 studies including a total of 3599 participants. The quality of the evidence for different comparisons ranged from low to moderate. The main limitations in the quality of the evidence were risk of bias associated with poor reporting of study methods, and imprecision.In the general population of women undergoing IVF, it is unclear whether CC or Ltz used with or without gonadotropins compared to use of gonadotropins along with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists or antagonists resulted in a difference in live birth (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.27, 4 RCTs, n = 493, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence) or clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.16, 12 RCTs, n = 1998, I2 = 3%, moderate-quality evidence). This means that for a typical clinic with 23% LBR using a GnRH agonist regimen, switching to CC or Ltz protocols would be expected to result in LBRs between 15% and 30%. Clomiphene citrate or Ltz protocols were associated with a reduction in the incidence of OHSS (Peto OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.41, 5 RCTs, n = 1067, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). This means that for a typical clinic with 6% prevalence of OHSS associated with a GnRH regimen, switching to CC or Ltz protocols would be expected to reduce the incidence to between 0.5% and 2.5%. We found evidence of an increase in cycle cancellation rate with the CC protocol compared to gonadotropins in GnRH protocols (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.43 to 2.45, 9 RCTs, n = 1784, I2 = 61%, low-quality evidence). There was moderate quality evidence of a decrease in the mean number of ampoules used,) and mean number of oocytes collected with CC with or without gonadotropins compared to the gonadotropins in GnRH agonist protocols, though data were too heterogeneous to pool.Similarly, in the poor-responder population, it is unclear whether there was any difference in rates of live birth (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.79, 2 RCTs, n = 357, I2 = 38%, low-quality evidence) or clinical pregnancy (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.12, 8 RCTs, n = 1462, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence) following CC or Ltz with or without gonadotropin versus gonadotropin and GnRH protocol. This means that for a typical clinic with a 5% LBR in the poor responders using a GnRH protocol, switching to CC or Ltz protocols would be expected to yield LBRs between 2% to 14%. There was low quality evidence that the CC or Ltz protocols were associated with an increase in the cycle cancellation rate (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.81, 10 RCTs, n = 1601, I2 = 64%) and moderate quality evidence of a decrease in the mean number of gonadotropin ampoules used and the mean number of oocytes collected, though data were too heterogeneous to pool. The adverse effects of these protocols were poorly reported. In addition, data on foetal abnormalities following use of CC or Ltz protocols are lacking.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no conclusive evidence indicating that clomiphene citrate or letrozole with or without gonadotropins differed from gonadotropins in GnRH agonist or antagonist protocols with respect to their effects on live-birth or pregnancy rates, either in the general population of women undergoing IVF treatment or in women who were poor responders. Use of clomiphene or letrozole led to a reduction in the amount of gonadotropins required and the incidence of OHSS. However, use of clomiphene citrate or letrozole may be associated with a significant increase in the incidence of cycle cancellations, as well as reductions in the mean number of oocytes retrieved in both the general IVF population and the poor responders. Larger, high-quality randomized trials are needed to reach a firm conclusion before they are adopted into routine clinical practice.

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.

Short versus long gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue suppression protocols in advanced age women undergoing IVF/ICSI

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effective of two GnRH-a protocols for ovarian stimulation in advanced age women undergoing IVF/ICSI cycles.

STUDY DESIGN

A total of 1149 IVF-ET/ICSI cycles were retrospectively identified. The cycles were divided two groups, namely a long-protocol group and a short-protocol group.

RESULTS

The numbers of oocytes retrieved, and high-quality embryos in the long-protocol group were significantly greater than those in the short-protocol group. In the long-protocol group, the implantation and pregnancy rates were 17.22% and 33.67%, respectively, and these values were significantly higher than those in the short-protocol group (8.24% and 15.96%, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated that the long protocol was superior to the short protocol for advanced age women.

Profile of follitropin alpha/lutropin alpha combination for the stimulation of follicular development in women with severe luteinizing hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone deficiency

A severe gonadotropin deficiency together with chronic estradiol deficiency leading to amenorrhea characterizes patients suffering from hypogonadotropic hypogonadism. Administration of both follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH) to these patients has been shown to be essential in achieving successful stimulation of follicular development, ovulation, and rescue of fertility. In recent years, the availability of both recombinant FSH (rFSH) and recombinant LH (rLH) has provided a new therapeutic option for the stimulation of follicular growth in hypopituitary–hypogonadotropic women (World Health Organization Group I). In this article, we review the data reported in the literature to highlight the role and the efficacy of using recombinant gonadotropins, rFSH and rLH, in the treatment of women with severe LH/FSH deficiency. Although the studies on this issue are limited and the experiences available in the literature are few due to the small number of such patients, it is clearly evident that the recombinant gonadotropins rFSH and rLH are efficient in treating patients affected by hypogonadotropic hypogonadism. The results observed in the studies reported in this review suggest that recombinant gonadotropins are able to induce proper follicular growth, oocyte maturation, and eventually pregnancy in this group of women. Moreover, the clinical use of recombinant gonadotropins in this type of patients has given more insight into some endocrinological aspects of ovarian function that have not yet been fully understood.

Luteal-phase ovarian stimulation vs conventional ovarian stimulation in patients with normal ovarian reserve treated for IVF: a large retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

We have previously reported a new luteal-phase ovarian stimulation (LPS) strategy for infertility treatment. The purpose of this study was to systematically assess the efficiency and safety of this strategy by comparing it with conventional ovarian stimulation protocols.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SUBJECTS

Patients with normal ovarian reserve undergoing ovum pick-up (OPU) cycles between April 2012 and September 2013 were enrolled: 708 patients underwent the LPS protocol compared with 745 patients who underwent the mild treatment protocol and 1287 patients who underwent the short-term protocol.

MEASUREMENTS

Number of mature oocytes retrieved and top-quality embryos obtained, implantation rate, pregnancy rate, live birth and ongoing pregnancy rate and neonatal outcomes.

RESULTS

The numbers of mature oocytes retrieved and top-quality embryos obtained per OPU cycle were significantly increased in the LPS group (10·9 ± 7·6 and 4·6 ± 4·3, respectively) compared with the mild treatment group (3·7 ± 3·0 and 1·8 ± 1·8, respectively, both P < 0·001) or the short-term group (9·1 ± 5·5 and 3·7 ± 3·1, respectively, both P < 0·001). Moreover, the total gonadotrophin used was also the highest in the LPS group. No significant differences were identified in the implantation rate (35·5% vs 34·8%, P > 0·05), pregnancy rate (46·2% vs 43·7%, P > 0·05) or live birth and ongoing pregnancy rate (44·4% vs 41·7%, P > 0·05) per frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycle in the LPS and mild treatment groups, respectively. However, the LPS protocol achieved a higher implantation rate (35·5% vs 31·8%, P = 0·012), pregnancy rate (46·2% vs 41·9%, P = 0·041), and live birth and ongoing pregnancy rate (44·4% vs 39·2%, P = 0·012) compared with the short-term protocol. Neonatal outcomes in the LPS group were similar to the other two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The available data suggest that LPS is a feasible strategy for infertility treatment and complements the available follicular-phase ovarian stimulation strategies.

Dose-finding study of Leuplin depot for prevention of premature luteinizing hormone surge during controlled ovarian stimulation: a pilot study in intrauterine insemination treatment

OBJECTIVE

The standard dose of depot gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) may be too much to prevent premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surge in controlled ovarian stimulation (COS). The purpose of this study was to find out the minimal effective dose of Leuplin depot to prevent premature LH surge in patients undergoing intrauterine insemination (IUI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From January 2006 to December 2007, unexplained infertile patients who were going to undergo IUI were recruited into the study. They were assigned sequentially to one of the following treatment groups. The first 50 patients received the 1/3-dose of Leuplin depot in the midluteal phase of the cycle preceding COS. If no premature LH surge occurred in the 50 patients, the study was continued with 1/4-dose of Leuplin depot in the subsequent 50 patients. Similarly, if no premature LH surge occurred with 1/4 dose, the study was continued with 1/5-dose of Leuplin depot in the following 50 patients. Ovarian stimulation was started with human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) at 112.5 IU/d after downregulation, then IUI was performed 36 hours after human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) injection.

RESULTS

Premature LH surge was effectively prevented with 1/3-dose and 1/4-dose of Leuplin depot. Premature LH surge occurred in three of the 50 patients (6%) in the 1/5-dose group. The patients in the 1/4-dose group received a significantly lower amount of hMG and fewer days of COS, compared with the 1/3-dose group.

CONCLUSION

The 1/4 dose of Leuplin depot is the minimal effective dose to prevent premature LH surge. Further trial is worthwhile to compare the reducing dose Leuplin depot and daily low-dose leuprolide in in vitro fertilization (IVF) programs.

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.

Regimen of ovarian stimulation affects oocyte and therefore embryo quality

Without any doubt the regimen used to mature multiple capable oocytes for IVF impacts IVF outcomes. Studies have indicated that the inclusion of LH activity, adjuvant agents such as growth hormone (GH), and regimens providing for simultaneous action of both LH and FSH during final oocyte maturation may have beneficial effects on IVF outcomes. Because of the difficulty in improving IVF outcomes in poor responders, the studies on GH are of particular interest. As pointed out in this review, the apparent beneficial effects of GH on oocyte competence may also apply to older women or to normal responders with reduced embryo quality. A much more difficult question is whether and how much ovarian stimulation impacts on oocyte competence. Paradoxically it seems that there are not demonstrated differences between the stimulated and the natural unstimulated cycle, whereas studies in laboratory animals and IVF patients have shown deleterious effects of higher compared with lower doses of gonadotropins. Recent studies suggest that the use of high doses of gonadotropins as an independent factor correlates negatively with the probability of live birth, whereas a high ovarian response per se is associated with better cumulative pregnancy rates, owing to the availability of more euploid and good-quality embryos. Although adjunctive use of androgens has not been discussed here, it is briefly covered in the first review of this series.

Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist protocols for pituitary suppression in assisted reproduction

BACKGROUND

Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) are commonly used in assisted reproduction technology (ART) cycles to prevent a luteinising hormone surge during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) prior to planned oocyte retrieval, thus optimising the chances of live birth.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of the different GnRHa protocols as adjuncts to COH in women undergoing ART cycles.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases from inception to April 2015: the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and registries of ongoing trials. Reference lists of relevant articles were also searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any two protocols of GnRHa used in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles in subfertile women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted the data. The primary outcome measure was number of live births or ongoing pregnancies per woman/couple randomised. Secondary outcome measures were number of clinical pregnancies, number of oocytes retrieved, dose of gonadotrophins used, adverse effects (pregnancy losses, ovarian hyperstimulation, cycle cancellation, and premature luteinising hormone (LH) surges), and cost and acceptability of the regimens. We combined data to calculate odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous variables and mean differences (MD) for continuous variables, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I² statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation' (GRADE) methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 37 RCTs (3872 women), one ongoing trial, and one trial awaiting classification. These trials made nine different comparisons between protocols. Twenty of the RCTs compared long protocols and short protocols. Only 19/37 RCTs reported live birth or ongoing pregnancy.There was no conclusive evidence of a difference between a long protocol and a short protocol in live birth and ongoing pregnancy rates (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.81; 12 RCTs, n = 976 women, I² = 15%, low quality evidence). Our findings suggest that in a population in which 14% of women achieve live birth or ongoing pregnancy using a short protocol, between 13% and 23% will achieve live birth or ongoing pregnancy using a long protocol. There was evidence of an increase in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.92; 20 RCTs, n = 1643 women, I² = 27%, moderate quality evidence) associated with the use of a long protocol.There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in terms of live birth and ongoing pregnancy rates when the following GnRHa protocols were compared: long versus ultrashort protocol (OR 1.78, 95% CI 0.72 to 4.36; one RCT, n = 150 women, low quality evidence), long luteal versus long follicular phase protocol (OR 1.89, 95% CI 0.87 to 4.10; one RCT, n = 223 women, low quality evidence), when GnRHa was stopped versus when it was continued (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.33; three RCTs, n = 290 women, I² = 0%, low quality evidence), when the dose of GnRHa was reduced versus when the same dose was continued (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.52; four RCTs, n = 407 women, I² = 0%, low quality evidence), when GnRHa was discontinued versus continued after human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) administration in the long protocol (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.64; one RCT, n = 181 women, low quality evidence), and when administration of GnRHa lasted for two versus three weeks before stimulation (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.68; one RCT, n = 85 women, low quality evidence). Our primary outcomes were not reported for any other comparisons.Regarding adverse events, there were insufficient data to enable us to reach any conclusions except about the cycle cancellation rate. There was no conclusive evidence of a difference in cycle cancellation rate (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.55; 11 RCTs, n = 1026 women, I² = 42%, low quality evidence) when a long protocol was compared with a short protocol. This suggests that in a population in which 9% of women would have their cycles cancelled using a short protocol, between 5.5% and 14% will have cancelled cycles when using a long protocol.The quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to low. The main limitations in the evidence were failure to report live birth or ongoing pregnancy, poor reporting of methods in the primary studies, and imprecise findings due to lack of data. Only 10 of the 37 included studies were conducted within the last 10 years.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When long GnRHa protocols and short GnRHa protocols were compared, we found no conclusive evidence of a difference in live birth and ongoing pregnancy rates, but there was moderate quality evidence of higher clinical pregnancy rates in the long protocol group. None of the other analyses showed any evidence of a difference in birth or pregnancy outcomes between the protocols compared. There was insufficient evidence to make any conclusions regarding adverse effects.

Late follicular progesterone to estradiol ratio is not influenced by protocols or gonadotropins used

OBJECTIVE

Increased progesterone level during follicular phase seemed to be associated with decreased pregnancy rate.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A prospective cohort study, 1.1.2012 - 31.8.13. The Progesterone (P) and Progesterone/Estrogen (P/E2) level on ovulation induction day were compared between the protocols and the different gonadotropins used. Roc analysis was calculated to determine the cutoff of P/E2 to predict delivery rates. P/E2 ratio was calculated as PX1000/e2 level.

MAIN RESULTS

One hundred thirty-nine patients were enrolled to the study. No difference in the P level at hCG stimulation day between different protocols, however, E2 and P/E2 ratio were significantly lower in the long protocol compare with antagonist protocol 1757.7 ± 923.2 vs. 1342.9 ± 1223; P = 0.003 and 0.48 ± 0.31 vs. 0.83 ± 0.87; P = 0.038). The endometrium was significantly thicker in the long group compare with short and antagonist. Significantly more top-quality embryos (TOP) were achieved in the antagonist group. Comparable results between the types of gonadotropins used in regards with cycle characteristics and pregnancy and delivery rates. The P/E2 ratio which can predict live birth rate was found to be 0.45, AUC = 0.632, p = 0.02 and 95 % CI 0.525-0.738 and a significantly higher pregnancy and delivery rates at a P/E2 bellow 0.45.

CONCLUSION

Endometrial receptivity is determined by the complex interactions of E2 and P.

Short versus Long Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Analogue Suppression Protocols in IVF/ICSI Cycles in Patients of Various Age Ranges

Objective

To compare the two GnRH-a protocols (long GnRH-a protocol and short GnRH-a protocol) for ovarian stimulation in IVF/ICSI cycles in patients of various age ranges.

Methods

A total of 5662 IVF-ET/ICSI cycles from 2010 to 2013 were retrospectively identified. The cycles were divided into two groups: a long protocol group and short protocol group. In each group, the patients were divided into four age ranges: <31 years, 31 to 35 years, 36 to 40 years, and >40 years. The duration of stimulation, total dose of Gn, implantation rate and pregnancy rate were compared.

Results

The total dose of Gn was significantly higher, and the duration of stimulation was significantly longer, in the long protocol group than in the short protocol group for all age ranges (P<0.05). If the patients were of the same age range, the number of oocytes retrieved, MII oocytes, and high-quality embryos in the long protocol group were all significantly greater than those in the short protocol group (P<0.05). In the long protocol group, the clinical pregnancy rates of the four age ranges were 52.76%, 44.33%, 36.15% and 13.33%, respectively, which were significantly higher than those in the short protocol group (33.33%, 24.58%, 22.49% and 8.72%, respectively; P<0.05). The same trend was also found in the implantation rates of the four age ranges. As the age increased, the clinical pregnancy and implantation rates, as well as the number of oocytes retrieved, MII oocytes, and high-quality embryos, of the long protocol group significantly decreased (P<0.05).

Conclusions

Our study demonstrated that regardless of patient age, the long protocol was superior to the short protocol in terms of the number of retrieved oocytes, as well as the implantation and pregnancy rates.

Efficacy of corifollitropin alfa followed by recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone in a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol for Korean women undergoing assisted reproduction

Objective

To evaluate the effect of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol using corifollitropin alfa in women undergoing assisted reproduction.

Methods

Six hundred and eighty-six in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles were analyzed. In 113 cycles, folliculogenesis was induced with corifollitropin alfa and recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH), and premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surges were prevented with a GnRH antagonist. In the control group (573 cycles), premature LH surges were prevented with GnRH agonist injection from the midluteal phase of the preceding cycle, and ovarian stimulation was started with rFSH. The treatment duration, quality of oocytes and embryos, number of embryo transfer (ET) cancelled cycles, risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), and the chemical pregnancy rate were evaluated in the two ovarian stimulation protocols.

Results

There were no significant differences in age and infertility factors between treatment groups. The treatment duration was shorter in the corifollitropin alfa group than in the control group. Although not statistically significant, the mean numbers of matured (86.8% vs. 85.1%) and fertilized oocytes (84.2% vs. 83.1%), good embryos (62.4% vs. 60.3%), and chemical pregnancy rates (47.2% vs. 46.8%) were slightly higher in the corifollitropin alfa group than in the control group. In contrast, rates of ET cancelled cycles and the OHSS risk were slightly lower in the corifollitropin alfa group (6.2% and 2.7%) than in the control group (8.2% and 3.5%), although these differences were also not statistically significant.

Conclusion

Although no significant differences were observed, the use of corifollitropin alfa seems to offer some advantages to patients because of its short treatment duration, safety, lower ET cancellation rate and reduced risk of OHSS.

Comparison of long GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist protocol in poor responders

Objective:

To compare long GnRH agonist with GnRH antagonist protocol in poor responders.

Materials and Methods:

Medical charts of 531 poor responder women undergoing in-vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle at Zeynep Kamil Maternity and Children’s Hospital, IVF Center were retrospectively analysed. Those who received at least 300 IU/daily gonadotropin and had ≤3 oocytes retrieved were enrolled in the study. Poor responders were categorized into two groups as those who received long GnRH agonist or GnRH antagonist regimen.

Results:

Treatment duration and total gonadotropin dosage were significantly higher in women undergoing the long GnRH agonist regimen compared with the GnRH antagonist regimen (p<0.001 for both). Although the number of total and mature oocytes retrieved was similar between the groups, good quality embryos were found to be higher in the GnRH antagonist regimen. The day of embryo transfer and number of transferred embryos were similar in the groups. No statistically significant differences were detected in pregnancy (10.5% vs 14.1%), clinical pregnancy (7.7% vs 10.6%) and early pregnancy loss rates (27.2% vs 35%) between the groups.

Conclusion:

GnRH antagonist regimen may be preferable to long GnRH regimen as it could decrease the cost and treatment duration in poor responders.

The addition of gonadotrophin releasing hormone agonist to routine luteal phase support in intracytoplasmic sperm injection and embryo transfer cycles: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of addition of different dosages of gonadotrophin releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) to routine luteal phase support (LPS) on implantation and pregnancy rates.

STUDY DESIGN

Three hundred infertile couples who were treated by intracytoplasmic sperm injection and embryo transfer (ICSI-ET) following controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) with long luteal GnRH agonist protocol were enrolled. All women received 600 mg/day vaginal micronized progesterone plus 4 mg 17β estradiol for LPS starting from the day of oocyte retrieval. Patients (n=300) were randomized into three treatment groups. Group A (n=100) received leuprolide acetate 1 mg s.c. injection 3 days after ET in addition to routine LPS. Group B (n=100) received two sequential doses of leuprolide acetate 1 mg s.c. injections 3 and 6 days after ET in addition to routine LPS. Control group (n=100) received only the routine LPS.

RESULTS

A total of 279 patients completed the study. The groups were comparable in terms of baseline demographic parameters including age, duration of infertility and day 3 levels of FSH and estradiol. The cycle parameters of the groups were also comparable regarding the E2 level on day of hCG, number of retrieved oocytes, number of day 3 embryos, number of embryos transferred, and endometrial thickness on both days of OPU and ET. The implantation rates were similar in between the Groups A, B, and control group (20.7% and 25.8% vs. 13.3%, respectively; P=.099). The clinical pregnancy rates and miscarriage rates were similar in between the groups. The ongoing pregnancy rates were 27.4% in control group, 36% in Group A and 42.9% in Group B (P=.093). The OHSS rates were comparable in between the groups. The multiple pregnancy rates were significantly higher in Groups A and B than in control group (12% and 17.9% vs. 4.2%, respectively; P=.014).

CONCLUSIONS

The implantation, clinical pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy and multiple pregnancy rates seem to be increased with the addition of GnRH-a to routine luteal phase support.

Management of poor responders in IVF: is there anything new?

Despite the fact that in the last two decades an enormous number of papers on the topic of poor ovarian response have been published in the literature, so far it has been impossible to identify any efficient treatment to improve the ovarian response and the clinical outcome of this group of patients. The incidence of poor ovarian responders among infertile women has been estimated at 9–24% but according to recent reviews, it seems to have slightly increased. The limitation in quantifying the incidence of these patients among the infertile population is due to the difficulty of a clear definition in literature. A recent paper by the Bologna ESHRE working group on poor ovarian response has been the first real attempt to find a common definition. Current literature proposes new risk factors which could be the cause of a reduction in ovarian reserve, which also includes genetic factors. This represents the first necessary step towards finding applicable solutions for these patients. To date, there is a substantial lack of literature that identifies an ideal protocol for these patients. The use of the “Bologna criteria” and the introduction of long acting gonadotropin in clinical practice have given rise to new promising stimulation protocols for this group of patients.

Effect of delayed initiation of gonadotropin in luteal long protocol on in vitro fertilization

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether delayed initiation of gonadotropin in luteal long protocol affected the outcome of in vitro fertilization (IVF).

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective randomized study at the reproductive centre of a university-based hospital. Eighty-five subfertile women undergoing IVF embryo transfer after a standardized gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) long protocol. The patients were randomized into group A (stimulated 3 weeks after GnRHa administration) and group B (stimulated 2 weeks after GnRHa administration), according to the time of gonadotropin initiation after GnRHa-mediated pituitary suppression. The main outcome measures were clinical pregnancy and live birth rates.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics such as age, body mass index and basal follicle-stimulating hormone (bFSH) between the two groups. In group B, the days of gonadotropin stimulation were significantly greater than that in group A (p < 0.05), while the total dose of gonadotropin in group A was comparable to that in group B. Serum luteinizing hormone was lower and follicle-stimulating hormone higher in group A than in group B (p < 0.05) on initiation day. There were no significant differences in hormone profile measurements between the two groups. Moreover, the clinical pregnancy rate, implantation rate, live birth rate, miscarriage rate and moderate ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome rate were not significantly different between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Delay of gonadotropin stimulation in a standard long protocol may increase clinical efficiency, without significantly changing clinical outcome.

The luteal phase after ovarian stimulation

Evaluation of the luteal phase after ovarian stimulation presents several difficulties. Until today, it has not been proved that in cycles stimulated with clomiphene citrate/human menopausal gonadotrophins, luteal supplementation with progesterone significantly increases implantation rate. On the contrary, it is accepted that in cycles stimulated with GnRH agonists/gonadotrophins, support of the luteal phase is essential for the achievement of pregnancy. In GnRH antagonist cycles luteal supplementation, although widely practised, is not at present supported by randomized controlled trials. Finally, it appears that the combination of gonadotrophin stimulation with human chorionic gonadotrophin results in an inadequate luteal phase with or without the use of either agonists or antagonists.

Effect of duration of the GnRH agonists in the luteal phase in the outcome of assisted reproduction cycles

The effect of long-acting GnRHa, in the luteal phase, during ART cycles varies from one patient to another. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the effect of long-acting GnRHa in the luteal phase, in ART cycles, affects pregnancy rates according to the duration of its action in such phase. This is a retrospective study of 367 patients submitted to ovulation induction for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection procedures that used long-acting depot GnRHa for pituitary suppression. Patients were stratified according to the period of action of the agonist in the luteal phase: group 1, ≤ 6 days; group 2, 7 to 12 days; and group 3, >12 days. The following variables were analyzed: ovarian response, age, infertility causes and pregnancy rates. Group 1 (n = 53) had a mean age of 33.8 ± 4.55 years (23-44 years) and a pregnancy rate of 45.2%. In group 2 (n = 118), mean age was 33.7 ± 4.5 years (24-44 years) and the pregnancy rate was 38.9%. In group 3 (n = 196), mean age was 33.7 ± 4.4 years (23-43 years) and the pregnancy rate was 47.4%. Regardless of the duration of depot GnRHa action in the luteal phase, no significant association with pregnancy rates was found.

Clomiphene citrate in combination with gonadotropins for controlled ovarian stimulation in women undergoing in vitro fertilization

BACKGROUND

Gonadotropins are the most commonly used medication for controlled ovarian stimulation in in vitro fertilization (IVF). However, they are expensive, invasive and are associated with risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). With recent calls for patient friendly IVF, there has been an interest in the use of clomiphene citrate with or without gonadotropins to reduce the burden of injections. However, it is not known whether regimens using clomiphene are at least as effective as gonadotropins alone.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether clomiphene citrate with gonadotropins (with or without mid-cycle antagonist) is more effective than gonadotropins with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists for controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (searched March 2012), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, first quarter), MEDLINE (1970 to March 2012), EMBASE (1985 to Mar 2012) and reference lists of articles. Relevant conference proceedings were handsearched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCT) were included. Live birth rate (LBR) per woman was the primary outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and quality of trials

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included in the review. Meta-analysis could be performed with the data of 12 included studies, with a total of 2536 participants. There was no evidence that clomiphene along with gonadotropins for IVF, with or without mid-cycle GnRH antagonist, differed from gonadotropins alone in GnRH agonist protocols in terms of live births (5 RCTs, 1079 women; OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.69 to1.24) or clinical pregnancy (11 RCTs, 1864 women; OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.85 to1.33). This means that for a typical clinic with 23% LBR using a GnRH agonist regimen, switching to clomiphene protocols would be expected to result in LBRs between 16% and 26%. There was a significant reduction in the incidence of OHSS (5 RCTs, 1559 women; OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.52). This means that for a typical clinic with 3.5% prevalence of OHSS using a GnRH agonist regimen, switching to clomiphene citrate protocols would be expected to reduce the incidence to between 0.8% and 1.8%. The trials included in this review were very old and outcomes such as live births, multiple pregnancy, OHSS and miscarriages have not been reported by most studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence to indicate that clomiphene with gonadotropins (with or without GnRH antagonist) differed significantly from gonadotropins in GnRH agonist protocols for women undergoing IVF treatment, in terms of live births or pregnancy rates. Meanwhile, use of clomiphene led to a reduction in the incidence of OHSS. However, these results were based on data from a small number of underpowered randomised trials with few participants. Hence there was insufficient evidence to recommend use of clomiphene citrate in routine IVF practice. Larger trials with adequate power are required.

Doppler of the uterine arteries combined with endometrial thickness correlate well with the degree of pituitary suppression in women treated with long-acting GnRH agonists

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of Doppler velocimetry of the uterine arteries and its association to endometrial thickness as a method to confirm pituitary suppression after administration of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues in assisted reproduction treatment cycles.

METHODS

A total of 70 patients using gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues for pituitary suppression for in vitro fertilization treatment were studied. To confirm down-regulation, serum estradiol levels and endometrial thickness were evaluated 10 days after gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues administration. When estradiol was <30 pg/ml and endometrial thickness was <3 mm, pituitary suppression was confirmed. Doppler velocimetric measurements were performed at the same day to study the pulsatility index of the uterine arteries, until pituitary suppression was confirmed.

RESULTS

All 70 patients had normal ovarian morphology. For the patients who had estradiol levels ≤30 pg/ml, the mean pulsatility index of the uterine arteries was 2.95 ± 0.79 and for those who had levels >30 pg/ml the mean PI was 2.22 ± 0.8 (p = 0.005). For the patients who had endometrial thickness ≤5 mm the mean PI was 2.86 ± 0.82 and for those with endometrial thickness >5 mm the mean PI was 2.17 ± 0.79 (p = 0.004). Using a cut-off point of 2.51 for the pulsatility index, to compare to estradiol levels, we observed a sensitivity of 72.7 % and specificity of 71 %. The combination of Doppler velocimetric and endometrial thickness showed a sensitivity of 94 % and specificity of 82.3 %.

CONCLUSIONS

Doppler velocimetric analysis of the uterine arteries can be an important tool in the diagnosis of the down-regulation after the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues and might help simplify assisted reproduction programmes.

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.

Ovarian stimulation protocols in assisted reproductive technology: an update

Controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) with gonadotropins to produce multiple follicular development and high-quality oocytes is the cornerstone of assisted reproductive technology. Today, recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone (r-hFSH) is widely used for COS. A long-acting r-hFSH and a combination of r-hFSH and recombinant human luteinizing hormone have recently become available. Formulations of purified urinary FSH with or without luteinizing hormone activity (provided by human chorionic gonadotropin) are also available. COS protocols can now be individualized to optimize efficacy and safety - defined as singleton pregnancies with a low incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. This is facilitated by an estimation of ovarian response using the antral follicle count and/or serum anti-Müllerian hormone levels; anti-Müllerian hormone is viewed as the most reliable single marker. However, an efficient management strategy for poor responders to COS is still required. Developments in biomarkers and other techniques for accurate identification of viable oocytes and embryos and optimal uterine receptivity are expected.

Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist protocols for pituitary suppression in assisted reproduction

BACKGROUND

Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) are used in assisted reproduction technology (ART) cycles to prevent a luteinizing hormone surge. Various protocols have been described in the literature, such as long protocols (continuous and stop or reduce dose, long luteal, or long follicular protocol); short protocols and ultrashort protocols.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the most effective GnRHa protocol as an adjuvant to gonadotrophins in ART cycles.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAHL and PsycINFO. Reference lists of relevant articles were also searched. All the searches were updated to August 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials comparing any two protocols of GnRHa in in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcome measure was live births per women. Secondary outcome measures were pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, number of oocytes retrieved and amount of gonadotrophins used. Data were independently extracted in 2 x 2 tables by two authors. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated after verifying the presence of homogeneity of treatment effect across all trials. For continuous variables mean differences (MD) were calculated.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 29 included studies, 17 compared long with short protocols; two compared long with ultrashort protocols; four compared a follicular versus luteal start of GnRHa; three compared continuation versus stopping the GnRHa at the start of stimulation; three compared continuation of the same dose versus reduced dose of GnRHa and one compared a short versus short stop protocol.There was no evidence of a difference in the live birth rate but this outcome was only reported by three studies.There was evidence of a significant increase in clinical pregnancy rate (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.93) in a long protocol when compared to a short protocol. That is there is a 50% increase in chance of achieving pregnancy if a long protocol is used as compared to a short protocol, although this difference could range from 16% to 93% increased chance of pregnancy. This difference did not persist when the meta-analysis was done only on the studies with adequate randomisation (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.05).There was evidence of an increased number of oocytes (MD 1.61, 95% CI 0.18 to 3.04) obtained when a long protocol was used as compared to a short protocol. That is there is a 60% increase in the number of oocytes retrieved when a long protocol is used as compared to a short protocol, although this difference could range from 18% to 304% more oocytes.There was evidence of an increase (MD 12.90, 95% CI 3.29 to 22.51) in the requirement for gonadotrophins in long as compared to short protocols. That is approximately 12.9 more ampoules of gonadotrophins were consumed when a long protocol was used as compared to a short protocol. This difference could range from 3.29 to 22.51 more gonadotrophin ampoules.There was no evidence of a difference in any of the outcome measures for luteal versus follicular start of GnRHa and stopping versus continuation of GnRHa at the start of stimulation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The pregnancy rate was found to be higher when GnRHa was used in a long protocol as compared to a short or ultrashort protocol. There was no evidence of a difference in live birth rate, but this outcome was only reported by three studies. There was no evidence of a difference in the outcomes amongst various long protocols; nor that stopping or reducing GnRHa at the start of stimulation was associated with a reduced pregnancy rate. For all comparison, except a long versus short protocol, there was a lack of power.

The role of corifollitropin alfa in controlled ovarian stimulation for IVF in combination with GnRH antagonist

Corifollitropin alfa is a synthetic recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) molecule containing a hybrid beta subunit, which provides a plasma half-life of ∼65 hours while maintaining its pharmocodynamic activity. A single injection of corifollitropin alfa can replace daily FSH injections for the first week of ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization. Stimulation can be continued with daily FSH injections if the need arises. To date, more than 2500 anticipated normoresponder women have participated in clinical trials with corifollitropin alfa. It is noteworthy that one-third of women did not require additional gonadotropin injections and reached human chorionic gonadotropin criterion on day 8. The optimal corifollitropin dose has been calculated to be 100 μg for women with a body weight ≤60 kg and 150 μg for women with a body weight >60 kg, respectively. Combination of corifollitropin with daily gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist injections starting on stimulation day 5 seems to yield similar or significantly higher numbers of oocytes and good quality embryos, as well as similar ongoing pregnancy rates compared with women stimulated with daily rFSH injections. Stimulation characteristics, embryology, and clinical outcomes seem consistent with repeated corifollitropin-stimulated assisted reproductive technologies cycles. Multiple pregnancy or ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome rates with corifollitropin were not increased over daily FSH regimen. The corifollitropin alfa molecule does not seem to be immunogenic and does not induce neutralizing antibody formation. Drug hypersensitivity and injection-site reactions are not increased. Incidence and nature of adverse events and serious adverse events are similar to daily FSH injections. Current trials do not provide information regarding use of corifollitropin alfa in anticipated hyper- and poor responders to gonadotropin stimulation. Although corifollitropin alfa is unlikely to be teratogenic, at the moment data on congenital malformations is missing.

Who needs LH in ovarian stimulation?

LH plays a key role in the intermediate-late phases of folliculogenesis. Although ovarian stimulation is efficiently achieved in most cases by the administration of exogenous FSH alone, specific subgroups of women may benefit from LH activity supplementation during ovarian stimulation. Some authors have found improved outcome with LH activity supplementation in advanced reproductive age women. Experience suggests that in about 10-12% of young normogonadotrophic patients treated with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) long protocol plus recombinant FSH human (r-hFSH), a 'steady response' is observed. In this subgroup of women, a higher number of oocytes is retrieved when daily LH activity supplementation is given from stimulation day 8, if compared with the standard FSH dose increase. Another subgroup of patients who may benefit from LH activity supplementation are those at risk for poor ovarian response treated with GnRH antagonist. Recent data demonstrate that in these women, when GnRH is administered in a flexible protocol, the concomitant addition of recombinant human LH improves the number of mature oocytes retrieved, when compared with the standard GnRH-a flare-up protocol. Thus, well calibrated LH administration improves the ovarian outcome in patients >35 years, in those showing an initial abnormal ovarian response to r-hFSH monotherapy, and in 'low prognosis' women treated with GnRH antagonists.

Individualised controlled ovarian stimulation (iCOS): maximising success rates for assisted reproductive technology patients

BACKGROUND

In the last two decades, pregnancy rates for patients undergoing in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) have significantly increased. Some of the major advances responsible for this improvement were the introduction of controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for the induction of multiple follicle development, and the utilisation of mid-luteal gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists to achieve pituitary down-regulation and full control of the cycle. As a result, a combination of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist with high doses (150-450 IU/day) of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone has become the current standard approach for ovarian stimulation. However, given the heterogeneity of patients embarking on IVF, and the fact that many different drugs can be used alone or in different combinations (generating multiple potential protocols of controlled ovarian stimulation), we consider the need to identify special populations of patients and adapt treatment protocols accordingly, and to implement a more individualised approach to COS.

DISCUSSION

Studies on mild, minimal and natural IVF cycles have yielded promising results, but have focused on fresh embryo transfers and included relatively young patient populations who generally have the potential for more favourable outcomes. The efficacy of these protocols in patients with a poorer prognosis remains to be tested. When comparing protocols for COS, it is important to think beyond current primary endpoints, and to consider the ideal quality and quantity of oocytes and embryos being produced per stimulated patient, in order to achieve a pregnancy. We should also focus on the cumulative pregnancy rate, which is based on outcomes from fresh and frozen embryos from the same cycle of stimulation. Individualised COS (iCOS) determined by the use of biomarkers to test ovarian reserve has the potential to optimise outcomes and reduce safety issues by adapting treatment protocols according to each patient's specific characteristics. As new objective endocrine, paracrine, functional and/or genetic biomarkers of response are developed, iCOS can be refined further still, and this will be a significant step towards a personalised approach for IVF.

CONCLUSIONS

A variety of COS protocols have been adopted, with mixed success, but no single approach is appropriate for all patients within a given population. We suggest that treatment protocols should be adapted for individual patients through iCOS; this approach promises to be one of the first steps towards implementing personalised medicine in reproductive science.