Should gonadotropin-releasing hormone down-regulation therapy be routine in in vitro fertilization?**Presented at the Conjoint Meeting of The American Fertility Society and the Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, October 11 to 14, 1993

Mild versus conventional ovarian stimulation for IVF in poor, normal and hyper-responders: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Mild ovarian stimulation has emerged as an alternative to conventional IVF with the advantages of being more patient-friendly and less expensive. Inadequate data on pregnancy outcomes and concerns about the cycle cancellation rate (CCR) have prevented mild, or low-dose, IVF from gaining wide acceptance.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

To evaluate parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on IVF where comparisons were made between a mild (≤150 IU daily dose) and conventional stimulation in terms of clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness in patients described as poor, normal and non-polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) hyper-responders to IVF.

SEARCH METHODS

Searches with no language restrictions were performed using Medline, Embase, Cochrane central, Pre-Medicine from January 1990 until April 2020, using pre-specified search terms. References of included studies were hand-searched as well as advance access articles to key journals. Only parallel-group RCTs that used ≤150 IU daily dose of gonadotrophin as mild-dose IVF (MD-IVF) and compared with a higher conventional dose (CD-IVF) were included. Studies were grouped under poor, normal or hyper-responders as described by the authors in their inclusion criteria. Women with PCOS were excluded in the hyper-responder group. The risk of bias was assessed as per Cochrane Handbook for the included studies. The quality of evidence (QoE) was assessed according to the GRADE system. PRISMA guidance was followed for review methodology.

OUTCOMES

A total of 31 RCTs were included in the analysis: 15 in the poor, 14 in the normal and 2 in the hyper-responder group. Live birth rates (LBRs) per randomisation were similar following use of MD-IVF in poor (relative risk (RR) 0.91 (CI 0.68, 1.22)), normal (RR 0.88 (CI 0.69, 1.12)) and hyper-responders (RR 0.98 (CI 0.79, 1.22)) when compared to CD-IVF. QoE was moderate. Cumulative LBRs (5 RCTs, n = 2037) also were similar in all three patient types (RR 0.96 (CI 0.86 1.07) (moderate QoE). Risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome was significantly less with MD-IVF than CD-IVF in both normal (RR 0.22 (CI 0.10, 0.50)) and hyper-responders (RR 0.47 (CI 0.31, 0.72)), with moderate QoE. The CCRs were comparable in poor (RR 1.33 (CI 0.96, 1.85)) and hyper-responders (RR 1.31 (CI 0.98, 1.77)) but increased with MD-IVF among normal responders (RR 2.08 (CI 1.38, 3.14)); all low to very low QoE. Although fewer oocytes were retrieved and fewer embryos created with MD-IVF, the proportion of high-grade embryos was similar in all three population types (low QoE). Compared to CD-IVF, MD-IVF was associated with less gonadotrophin use and lower cost.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

This updated review provides reassurance on using MD-IVF not only for the LBR per cycle but also for the cumulative LBR, with moderate QoE. With risks identified with 'freeze-all' strategies, it may be time to recommend mild-dose ovarian stimulation for IVF for all categories of women i.e. hyper, poor and normal responders to IVF.

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.

Mild stimulation for in vitro fertilization

It has been proven that the use of high gonadotropin dose does not necessarily improve the final outcome of IVF. Mild ovarian stimulation is based on the principle of optimal utilization of competent oocytes/embryos and endometrial receptivity. There is growing evidence that the pregnancy or live birth rates with mild-stimulation protocols are comparable to those with conventional IVF; the cumulative pregnancy outcome has been shown to be no different, despite having fewer numbers of oocytes or embryos available with milder ovarian stimulation. Although equally effective, mild-stimulation IVF is associated with a greater safety profile, in terms of the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and venous thromboembolism. It is also found to be better tolerated by patients and less expensive. Emerging research evidence may lead to widespread acceptance of mild IVF, by both patients and IVF providers, and make IVF more accessible to women and couples worldwide.

Clomiphene citrate and letrozole to reduce follicle-stimulating hormone consumption during ovarian stimulation: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the available evidence comparing effectiveness of ovarian stimulation (OS) using clomiphene citrate (CC) and/or letrozole (LTZ) to reduce follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) consumption compared with standard OS.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared reproductive outcomes following in-vitro fertilization. We searched 11 electronic databases and hand-searched the reference lists of included studies and related reviews. We stratified the results, separating studies according to the oral agent used (CC or LTZ) and the characteristics of the included women (expected poor ovarian response or other women). When combining the results of the included studies, we assessed the relative risk (RR) for live birth, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and cycle cancelation, the Peto odds ratio (OR) for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and mean difference (MD) for the number of oocytes retrieved and FSH consumption.

RESULTS

A total of 22 studies were included in the review. Considering women with expected poor ovarian response, the available evidence suggested that using CC to reduce FSH consumption during OS provided similar rates of live birth (RR, 0.9 (95% CI, 0.6-1.2), moderate-quality evidence) and clinical pregnancy (RR, 1.0 (95% CI, 0.8-1.4), moderate-quality evidence); the use of LTZ did not cause a relevant change in the number of oocytes retrieved (MD, -0.4 (95% CI, -0.9 to 0.1), high-quality evidence). Considering the studies evaluating other women, the available evidence suggested that using CC to reduce FSH consumption during OS reduced the number of oocytes retrieved (MD, -4.6 (95% CI, -6.1 to -3.0), high-quality evidence) and risk of OHSS (Peto OR, 0.2 (95% CI, 0.1-0.3), moderate-quality evidence), while results were similar for rates of live birth (RR, 0.9 (95% CI, 0.7-1.1), moderate-quality evidence) and clinical pregnancy (RR, 1.0 (95% CI, 0.8-1.1), high-quality evidence). The quality of the evidence was low or very low for other outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The use of CC to reduce FSH consumption in women with expected poor ovarian response has the advantage of providing similar reproductive outcomes with reduced costs. For the other women, the use of CC for reducing FSH consumption has the additional advantage of reducing OHSS, but also reduces the total number of oocytes retrieved. More studies are needed to evaluate the effect of LTZ for the same purpose. Future studies should focus on cumulative pregnancy per oocyte retrieval, patient dissatisfaction and agreement to repeat the cycle if not pregnant, which are important outcomes for clinical decisions. Copyright © 2017 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Management of ovarian stimulation for IVF: narrative review of evidence provided for World Health Organization guidance

In this paper, a review of evidence provided to the World Health Organization (WHO) guideline development, who prepare global guidance on the management of ovarian stimulation for women undergoing IVF, is presented. The purpose of ovarian stimulation is to facilitate retrieval of multiple oocytes during a single IVF cycle. Availability of multiple oocytes compensates for inefficiencies in subsequent stages of the cycle, which include oocyte maturation, IVF, embryo culture, embryo transfer, and implantation. Multiple embryos can be transferred in most women, and spare embryos can be frozen to allow for future chances of pregnancy without the need for repeated ovarian stimulation and oocyte retrieval. Our evidence synthesis team addressed 10 clinical questions on management of ovarian stimulation for IVF, prepared a narrative review of the evidence and drafted recommendations to be considered through WHO guideline development processes. Our main outcome measures were live birth, clinical pregnancy, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.

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.

Depot versus daily administration of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist protocols for pituitary down regulation in assisted reproduction cycles

BACKGROUND

Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) is commonly used to switch off (down regulate) the pituitary gland and thus suppress ovarian activity in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Other fertility drugs (gonadotrophins) are then used to stimulate ovulation in a controlled manner. Among the various types of pituitary down regulation protocols in use, the long protocol achieves the best clinical pregnancy rate. The long protocol requires GnRHa administration until suppression of ovarian activity occurs, within approximately 14 days. GnRHa can be used either as daily low-dose injections or through a single injection containing higher doses of the drug (depot). It is unclear which of these two forms of administration is best, and whether single depot administration may require higher doses of gonadotrophins.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness and safety of a single depot dose of GHRHa versus daily GnRHa doses in women undergoing IVF.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (searched July 2012), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2012), EMBASE (1980 to July 2012) and LILACS (1982 to July 2012). We also screened the reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing depot and daily administration of GnRHa for long protocols in IVF treatment cycles in couples with any cause of infertility, using various methods of ovarian stimulation. The primary review outcomes were live birth or ongoing pregnancy, clinical pregnancy and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Other outcomes included number of oocytes retrieved, miscarriage, multiple pregnancy, number of gonadotrophin (FSH) units used for ovarian stimulation, duration of gonadotrophin treatment, cost and patient convenience.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed study quality. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) per woman randomised. Where appropriate, we pooled studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen studies were eligible for inclusion (n = 1811 participants), 12 (n = 1366 participants) of which were suitable for meta-analysis. No significant heterogeneity was detected.There were no significant differences between depot GnRHa and daily GnRHa in live birth/ongoing pregnancy rates (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.31, seven studies, 873 women), but substantial differences could not be ruled out. Thus for a woman with a 24% chance of achieving a live birth or ongoing pregnancy using daily GnRHa injections, the corresponding chance using GnRHa depot would be between 18% and 29%.There was no significant difference between the groups in clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.23, 11 studies, 1259 women). For a woman with a 30% chance of achieving clinical pregnancy using daily GnRHa injections, the corresponding chance using GnRHa depot would be between 25% and 35%.There was no significant difference between the groups in the rate of severe OHSS (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.42, five studies, 570 women), but substantial differences could not be ruled out. For a woman with a 3% chance of severe OHSS using daily GnRHa injections, the corresponding risk using GnRHa depot would be between 1% and 6%.Compared to women using daily GnRHa, those on depot administration required significantly more gonadotrophin units for ovarian stimulation (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.26, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.43, 11 studies, 1143 women) and a significantly longer duration of gonadotrophin use (mean difference (MD) 0.65, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.84, 10 studies, 1033 women).Study quality was unclear due to poor reporting. Only four studies reported live births as an outcome and only five described adequate methods for concealment of allocation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence of a significant difference between depot and daily GnRHa use for pituitary down regulation in IVF cycles using the long protocol, but substantial differences could not be ruled out. Since depot GnRHa requires more gonadotrophins and a longer duration of use, it may increase the overall costs of IVF treatment.

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.

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.

Short versus long gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue suppression protocols for superovulation in patients ≥40 years old undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the short or long protocol for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation works better in older patients undergoing IVF.

DESIGN

Controlled, randomized study.

SETTING

A single private IVF center.

PATIENT(S)

Two hundred twenty infertile women aged > or = 40 years undergoing IVF.

INTERVENTION(S)

At their first IVF cycle, the women were randomized into two study groups according to a computer-generated number sequence: 110 patients were treated with a long protocol, and the other 110 were treated with a short protocol for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Days of stimulation, E2 level at the day of hCG administration, amount of FSH administered, number of oocytes collected, number of embryos obtained, pregnancy rate, implantation rate.

RESULT(S)

Patients treated with a long protocol showed a significantly higher number of oocytes retrieved, a higher number of embryos obtained, and a higher pregnancy rate, both for cycle and transfer, compared with the short-protocol patients. The other parameters evaluated did not show any statistically significant differences.

CONCLUSION(S)

Our study showed that the long protocol performed better than the short protocol in older women. Our findings demonstrated that flare-up in older women might be detrimental.

Depot versus daily administration of gonadotrophin releasing hormone agonist protocols for pituitary desensitization in assisted reproduction cycles

BACKGROUND

Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) has been widely used in cycles of in vitro fertilization (IVF). Among the various types of GnRHa ovarian stimulation protocols, the long protocol presents the best clinical pregnancy rates per cycle initiated (GnRHa administration until the suppression of ovarian activity is evident, within approximately 14 days). There are two types of GnRHa administration that can be used to lead to hypophysis desensitization in the IVF cycle in the long protocol: one consisting of daily GnRHa low doses, and another with the administration of analogues in higher long-acting doses (depot). There are controversies in the data as far as the number of ampoules to be used in the cycles with the depot GnRHa treatment, as well as regarding the number of follicles made available, the number of oocytes, fertilization, implantation and pregnancy rates.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to compare the use of a single long-acting depot dose to that of daily GnRHa doses in in vitro fertilization cycles.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's specialised register of trials (searched 15 April 2004), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (1984 to April 2004), EMBASE (1984 to June 2003), LILACS (1984 to April 2004) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Types of studies: RCTs comparing depot and daily administration of GnRHa for long protocols in IVF treatment cycles.

TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS

Couples with any cause of infertility. Types of interventions: Ovarian stimulation with human follicle stimulating hormone (hFSH) and/or human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) and/or recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH) in IVF treatment cycles. Types of outcome measures: Clinical pregnancy rates per woman, per oocyte retrieval procedure, per embryo transfer, number of oocytes retrieved, oocyte fertilization rates, ongoing/delivered pregnancy rates per cycle started, abortion rates, multiple pregnancy rates, number of ampoules of gonadotropin employed, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) incidence rates, cost analysis and patient convenience.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The reviewers evaluated allocation concealment, classified as adequate, uncertain or inadequate. Two reviewers extracted the data independently. All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat method.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies, with a total of 552 women, were included and analysed. The studies do not indicate that there is statistically significant difference between the use of depot GnRHa or daily GnRHa in the primary outcome, clinical pregnancy rates per woman (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.37). However, there was sufficient evidence that the use of depot GnRHa for pituitary desensitization in IVF cycles increased the number of gonadotrophins ampoules (WMD 3.30, 95% CI 1.27 to 5.34) and the duration of the ovarian stimulation (WMD 0.56, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.81), as compared with daily GnRHa.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although we recognise that the clinical pregnancy rates per woman are not the ideal primary outcome, we found no evidence of differences between the long protocol using depot or daily GnRHa for IVF cycles. However, the use of depot GnRHa is associated with increased requirements for gonadotrophins and a longer time required for ovarian stimulation. If these differences could be shown to translate into economic benefit, depot GnRHa should increase the overall costs of IVF treatment.

Depot versus daily administration of gonadotrophin releasing hormone agonist protocols for pituitary desensitization in assisted reproduction cycles

BACKGROUND

Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) has been widely used in cycles of in vitro fertilization (IVF). Among the various types of GnRHa ovarian stimulation protocols, the long protocol presents the best clinical pregnancy rates per cycle initiated (GnRHa administration until the suppression of ovarian activity is evident, within approximately 14 days). There are two types of GnRHa administration that can be used to lead to hypophysis desensitization in the IVF cycle in the long protocol: one consisting of daily GnRHa low doses, and another with the administration of analogues in higher long-acting doses (depot). There are controversies in the data as far as the number of ampoules to be used in the cycles with the depot GnRHa treatment, as well as regarding the number of follicles made available, the number of oocytes, fertilization, implantation and pregnancy rates.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to compare the use of a single long-acting depot dose to that of daily GnRHa doses in in vitro fertilization cycles.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Relevant RCTs were identified by electronic search of the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information) and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Types of studies: The study analyses RCTs comparing depot and daily administration of GnRHa for long protocols in IVF treatment cycles.

TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS

Couples with any cause of infertility. Types of interventions: Ovarian stimulation with human follicle stimulating hormone (hFSH) and/or human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) and/or recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH) in IVF treatment cycles. Types of outcome measures: Clinical pregnancy rates per woman, per oocyte retrieval procedure, per embryo transfer, number of oocytes retrieved, oocyte fertilization rates, ongoing/delivered pregnancy rates per cycle started, abortion rates, multiple pregnancy rates, number of ampoules of gonadotropin employed, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) incidence rates, cost analysis and patient convenience.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The reviewers evaluated allocation concealment, classified as adequate, uncertain or inadequate. Two reviewers extracted the data independently. All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat method.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies, with a total of 552 women, were included and analysed. The studies do not indicate that there is statistically significant difference between the use of depot GnRHa or daily GnRHa in the primary outcome, clinical pregnancy rates per woman (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.37). However, there was sufficient evidence that the use of depot GnRHa for pituitary desensitization in IVF cycles increased the number of gonadotrophins ampoules (WMD 3.30, 95% CI 1.27 to 5.34) and the duration of the ovarian stimulation (WMD 0.56, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.81), as compared with daily GnRHa.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Although we recognise that the clinical pregnancy rates per woman are not the ideal primary outcome, we found no evidence of differences between the long protocol using depot or daily GnRHa for IVF cycles. However, the use of depot GnRHa is associated with increased requirements for gonadotrophins and a longer time required for ovarian stimulation. If these differences could be shown to translate into economic benefit, depot GnRHa should increase the overall costs of IVF treatment.

A prospective randomized clinical trial of differing starter doses of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (follitropin-beta) for first time in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment cycles

OBJECTIVE

Comparison of the efficacy of differing starter doses of recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH) for IVF and intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles when the treatment is administered both subcutaneously and intramuscularly.

DESIGN

Single center 1-year prospective randomized study.

SETTING

Academic teaching hospital.

PATIENT(S)

345 couples in first cycle.

INTERVENTION(S)

Treatment with subcutaneous or intramuscular rFSH, followed by E(2) and ultrasound follicle tracking, with later oocyte collection and zygote transfer.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Ovarian response and other clinically dependent variables.

RESULT(S)

Group 1 patients, with day-3 FSH levels of less than 8.5 U/L, were randomized to begin treatment with rFSH at 150 IU (n = 146) or 200 IU (n = 151). The total dose of the drugs used was significantly lower in 150 IU group, as was the number of ICSI metaphase II oocytes. No other significant differences found. The dosage was increased in 9% on day 5. Group 2 patients, with day-3 FSH levels of greater than 8.5 U/L, were randomized to treatment with rFSH at 300 IU (n = 24) or 400 IU (n = 24). No significant outcome differences found between the two subgroups. Pregnancy rates for this group were half that of Group 1.Intramuscular administration was significantly more likely to result in a need for increased dosage than was subcutaneous administration. The level of E(2) at the time of hCG treatment was significantly lower in the intramuscular 150 IU group.

CONCLUSION(S)

In the main study total dosage used, the ICSI metaphase II oocyte numbers were significantly lower and there was a trend toward a need for a dosage increase on day 5 when 150 IU rFSH was the starter dosage, as compared to a starting dosage of 200 IU. Otherwise, there is little advantage to using the higher dosage.

Inhibition of gonadotropin surge by a brief mid-cycle regimen of ethinyl estradiol and norethindrone: possible role in in vitro fertilization

Various methods to prevent premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surge and improve cycle control during hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization (IVF) are standard of care. The purpose of the present study was to determine the influence of a 5-day regimen of ethinyl estradiol (EE) and norethindrone (NET) on folliculogenesis, gonadotropin surge, and ovulation. In a prospective randomized and comparative study, ten patients were assigned to two groups. A combination of 50 micrograms of EE and 1 mg of NET was used in groups I and II from days 6 through 10, and days 8 through 12, respectively. Blood samples and transvaginal ultrasound imaging were carried out throughout a 28-day cycle. Follicular diameter, plasma levels of LH, follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), estradiol and progesterone, and endometrial thickness were determined. No LH surge or ovulation was detected in any patient studied. Peak estradiol concentrations were not significantly different between the groups (152.04 +/- 107.1 pg/ml vs 162.1 +/- 56.1 pg/ml [mean +/- SD] for groups I and II, respectively). No differences were noted between the groups for serum concentrations of FSH (range: 2-9 mIU/ml) or LH (range: 2-10 mIU/ml) for any given cycle day. Mean follicular diameters were not different between groups I and II (20.5 +/- 8.1 mm2 vs 20.6 +/- 14.2 mm2). Ultrasound assessment of mid-cycle follicular growth revealed diameters ranging from 18.5 mm2 to 34.0 mm2. Endometrial thickness ranged from 8 to 10 mm. There was no evidence of ovulation on ultrasound examination and either persistence or gradual resolution of follicles through the luteal phase. Peak serum concentrations at mid-luteal phase were < or = 2 ng/ml. In this pilot study, the combination of EE and NET restricted to a 5-day course beginning on day 6 or 8 permitted folliculogenesis but effectively inhibited midcycle LH surge and ovulation. Such regimens may have a role in IVF cycles for prevention of premature LH surges, especially as stimulation regimens evolve toward decreased gonadotropin use for stimulation and strict FSH preparations with the potential need for less complete pituitary suppression.

Gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist protocols for pituitary desensitization in in vitro fertilization and gamete intrafallopian transfer cycles

BACKGROUND

Gonadotropin releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) are used in assisted reproduction cycles to reversibly block pituitary function and prevent a luteinizing hormone surge. In the short and ultrashort protocols of GnRHa administration, injection of gonadotropins is commenced a few days after the start of GnRHa. In the long protocols (with GnRHa started either in the midluteal phase or in the early follicular phase) gonadotropin administration is delayed until pituitary desensitization has been achieved, usually 2-3 weeks.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic overview of available data comparing short or ultrashort and long GnRHa protocols for pituitary desensitization in in vitro fertilization (IVF) and gamete intra-fallopian transfer (GIFT) treatment cycles.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Search strategies included on-line searching of the MEDLINE and EMBASE data bases and the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's Specialised Register from 1982 to 1998, and hand searching of bibliographies of relevant publications and reviews, and abstracts of scientific meetings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials of short or ultrashort versus long (follicular or luteal phase start) GnRHa protocols in IVF or GIFT treatment cycles.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted into 2 x 2 tables. For the primary outcome, clinical pregnancy per cycle started, the overall common odds ratio (OR) and the risk difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated after verifying the presence of homogeneity of treatment effect across all trials. The following subgroup comparisons were performed: ultrashort versus long protocols, short versus long protocols and, within each of these comparisons, subgroups of studies which used the long protocol with follicular phase start or the long protocol with luteal phase start. Secondary outcomes considered were clinical pregnancy per oocyte retrieval and per embryo transfer, spontaneous abortion, ongoing/delivered pregnancy per cycle started, number of ampoules of gonadotropin used, number of oocytes retrieved, and fertilization rate.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-six trials met the inclusion criteria. The common OR for clinical pregnancy per cycle started was 1.32 (95% CI, 1.10 - 1.57) in favour of the long GnRHa protocol. The studies were subgrouped, depending on whether, in the long protocol, the GnRHa was commenced in the follicular phase (8 trials) or luteal phase (16 trials). The respective ORs were 1.54 (95% CI, 1.11 - 2. 13) and 1.21 (95% CI, 0.98 - 1.51). After excluding the four trials using the ultrashort protocol, the OR for long versus short protocols (22 trials) was 1.27 (95% CI, 1.04 - 1.56). A comparison of long versus ultrashort protocols (4 trials) produced an OR of 1. 47 (95% CI, 1.02 - 2.12).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of clinical pregnancy rate per cycle started, this meta-analysis demonstrates the superiority of the long protocol over the short and ultrashort protocols for GnRHa use in IVF and GIFT cycles.

Good results of milder form of ovarian stimulation in an in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection program

In a prospective study, we compared two protocols of ovulation stimulation, the clomiphene citrate and human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) versus D-triptorelin, a long-acting gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist and hMG in 324 couples having their first in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) program, in terms of pregnancy rates and cost-effectiveness of drugs used. The GnRH agonist/hMG group was characterized by a greater mean number of ampoules of hMG used (31.7 versus 10.2), a larger number of oocytes collected (10.4 versus 4.2), and a larger number of embryos obtained (5.8 versus 2.9). With the policy of transferring only two of the best quality embryos, the mean number of embryos replaced were comparable (1.8 in clomiphene citrate/hMG and 1.9 in GnRH agonist/hMG group). The percentage of patients reaching embryo transfer was lower in the clomiphene citrate/hMG than in the GnRH agonist/hMG group (84.1% versus 93.1%, respectively). However, the combined results of the IVF and ICSI procedure in terms of pregnancy rate, both per patient and per embryo transfer were better, though not significantly in the clomiphene citrate/hMG than in GnRH agonist/hMG group (25.0% and 29.7% versus 23.7% and 25.5%, respectively). Similarly, the implantation rate was better (19.0% versus 13.5%, respectively). With the use of clomiphene citrate/hMG, a fivefold less costly drug regimen, we obtained pregnancy rates equivalent to those gained using GnRH agonist/hMG in our IVF/ICSI program.

A randomized prospective study of early follicular or midluteal initiation of long protocol gonadotropin-releasing hormone in an in vitro fertilization program

OBJECTIVE

To determine the optimum menstrual cycle time to initiate a long-protocol gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) down-regulation regimen before hMG stimulation before IVF.

DESIGN

Randomized, prospective, single, first cycle study.

SETTING

University teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

Eighty-six infertile couples undergoing IVF-ET attempt under rules for Ireland.

INTERVENTION

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist administered intranasally from day 1 or 21 of menstrual cycle. Human menopausal gonadotropin commenced when pituitary down-regulation was confirmed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Ovarian response, cancellation, fertilization, and pregnancy rates.

RESULTS

No significant differences found between day 1 and day 21 initiation. But starting on day 1 is more easily recognizable by patients and avoids the possibility of administering GnRH-a in the presence of an unsuspected pregnancy.

CONCLUSIONS

Both follicular and luteal phase initiation of GnRH-a long-protocol down-regulation are equally efficacious. In our clinical context, patients and management favor commencing on day 1.

In vitro fertilization: a cost-effective alternative for infertile couples?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost of in vitro fertilization by calculating the cost of a live birth using this technology and determine cost variation according to the clinical characteristics of a particular population.

DESIGN

Retrospective review of infertile couples who presented for their first IVF cycle in 1993. A fraction of the total population was assigned to three groups A, B, and C with high, intermediate and low probability of pregnancy respectively and their reproductive performance was evaluated until September 1994 or a maximum of three IVF cycles have been completed.

SETTING

The in vitro fertilization program at the Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston.

PATIENTS

182 couples who presented for their first IVF cycle in 1993.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The cost of a successful pregnancy using IVF in the three groups and in the general population was calculated by dividing the average cost of an IVF cycle by the fraction of the cycles resulting in a successful pregnancy.

RESULTS

The cost of a successful pregnancy in group A, B and C ranged from $22,857 to $42,666 after 1 cycle and from $26,800 to $74,666 after 3 IVF cycles. The average cost for the 182 patients was $29,120 after 1 cycle and $31,590 after a maximum of 3 IVF cycles.

CONCLUSION

The cost of a successful pregnancy: (1) was comparable to other options available to an infertile couple such as adoption and tubal surgery, (2) was 50% to 70% cheaper in the group with a highest probability of pregnancy when compared to the group with the lowest probability of pregnancy, and (3) did not vary significantly after 1 or 3 IVF cycles in most groups.