Cotreatment with growth hormone and gonadotropin for ovulation induction in hypogonadotropic patients: a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-response study*†*Supported by Novo Nordisk A/S, Gentofte, Denmark.†Presented at the 10th Annual Meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, Brussels, Belgium, June 25 to 29, 1994.‡Reprint requests: Zeev Shoham, M.D., Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kaplan Hospital, Rehovot 76100, Israel

Growth hormone for in vitro fertilisation (IVF)

BACKGROUND

In an effort to improve outcomes of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycles, the use of growth hormone (GH) has been considered as adjuvant treatment in ovarian stimulation. Improving the outcomes of IVF is especially important for women with infertility who are considered 'poor responders'. We have compared the outcomes of IVF with adjuvant GH versus no adjuvant treatment in routine use, and specifically in poor responders.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of growth hormone as an adjunct to IVF compared to standard IVF for women with infertility SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases (to November 2020): Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Epistemonikos database and trial registers together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adjuvant GH treatment in IVF compared with no adjuvant treatment for women with infertility. We excluded trials where additional adjuvant treatments were used with GH. We also excluded trials comparing different IVF protocols.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Two review authors independently performed assessment of trial risk of bias and extraction of relevant data. The primary review outcome was live birth rate. The secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate, oocytes retrieved, embryo transfer, units of gonadotropin used and adverse events, i.e. ectopic pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), congenital anomalies, oedema.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 RCTs (1352 women). Two RCTs (80 women) studied GH in routine use, and 14 RCTs (1272 women) studied GH in poor responders. The evidence was low to very low certainty, the main limitations being risk of bias, imprecision and heterogeneity. Adjuvant growth hormone compared to no adjuvant: routine use for in vitro fertilisation (IVF) The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GH on live birth rate per woman randomised for routine use in IVF (odds ratio (OR) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 4.43; I² = 0%; 2 trials, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). If the chance of live birth without adjuvant GH is assumed to be 15%, the chance of live birth with GH would be between 6% and 43%. There was insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion regarding clinical pregnancy rates per woman randomised, number of women with at least one oocyte retrieved per woman randomised and embryo transfer achieved per woman randomised; reported data were unsuitable for analysis. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GH on mean number of oocytes retrieved in normal responders (mean difference (MD) -0.02, 95% CI -0.79 to 0.74; I² = 0%; 2 trials, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GH on mean units of gonadotropin used in normal responders (MD 13.57, 95% CI -112.88 to 140.01; I² = 0%; 2 trials, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of GH on adverse events in normal responders. Adjuvant growth hormone compared to no adjuvant: use in poor responders for in vitro fertilisation (IVF) The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GH on live birth rate per woman randomised for poor responders (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.70; I² = 0%; 8 trials, 737 participants; very low-certainty evidence). If the chance of live birth without adjuvant GH is assumed to be 11%, the chance of live birth with GH would be between 13% and 25%. Adjuvant GH results in a slight increase in pregnancy rates in poor responders (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.53; I² = 15%; 11 trials, 1033 participants; low-certainty evidence). The results suggest, if the pregnancy rate without adjuvant GH is assumed to be 15%, with GH the pregnancy rate in poor responders would be between 19% and 31%. The evidence suggests that GH results in little to no difference in number of women with at least one oocyte retrieved (OR 5.67, 95% CI 1.54 to 20.83; I² = 0%; 2 trials, 148 participants; low-certainty evidence). If the chance of retrieving at least one oocyte in poor responders was 81%, with GH the chance is between 87% and 99%. There is a slight increase in mean number of oocytes retrieved with the use of GH for poor responders (MD 1.40, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.64; I² = 87%; 12 trials, 1153 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GH on embryo transfer achieved (OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.08 to 4.96; I² = 25%; 4 trials, 214 participants; very low-certainty evidence). If the chance of achieving embryo transfer is assumed to be 77%, the chance with GH will be 78% to 94%. Use of GH results in reduction of mean units of gonadotropins used for stimulation in poor responders (MD -1088.19, 95% CI -1203.20 to -973.18; I² = 91%; 8 trials, 685 participants; low-certainty evidence). High heterogeneity in the analyses for mean number of oocytes retrieved and units of GH used suggests quite different effects according to differences including in trial protocols (populations, GH dose and schedule), so these results should be interpreted with caution. We are uncertain of the effect of GH on adverse events in poor responders as six of the 14 included trials failed to report this outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of adjuvant GH in IVF treatment protocols has uncertain effect on live birth rates and mean number of oocytes retrieved in normal responders. However, it slightly increases the number of oocytes retrieved and pregnancy rates in poor responders, while there is an uncertain effect on live birth rates in this group. The results however, need to be interpreted with caution, as the included trials were small and few in number, with significant bias and imprecision. Also, the dose and regimen of GH used in trials was variable. Therefore, further research is necessary to fully define the role of GH as adjuvant therapy in IVF.

Does growth hormone supplementation improve oocyte competence and IVF outcomes in patients with poor embryonic development? A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Many studies have demonstrated the benefits of the addition of growth hormone (GH) to the controlled ovarian stimulation protocol in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles in poor-respond patients, but the effect of GH on patients with poor embryonic development remain unclear. This paper was designed to investigate the efficacy of GH co-treatment during IVF for the patients with poor embryonic development.

METHOD

A randomized controlled trial including 158 patients with poor embryo development was conducted between July 2017 and February 2019. One hundred and seven patients were randomized for GH treatment (GH group) and 51 patients for untreated (control group). The primary end-points were the clinical pregnancy and live birth rates in the two groups. The oocyte competence were assessed through calculating the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) copy number in corresponding cumulus granulosa cells (CGCs). Quantitative PCR were used for calculation of mtDNA copy number.

RESULTS

Relative to the control group, GH co-treatment resulted in a significantly higher number of retrieved oocytes (10.29 ± 5.92 versus 8.16 ± 4.17, P = 0.023) and cleaved embryos (6.73 ± 4.25 versus 5.29 ± 3.23, P = 0.036). The implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rates per cycle, and live birth rate per cycle were higher in the GH group than in the control group (36.00% versus 17.86%, P = 0.005; 43.93% versus 19.61%, P = 0.005; 41.12% versus 17.65%, P = 0.006). CGCs of the GH group had significantly higher mtDNA copy numbers than CGCs of the control group (252 versus 204, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

These data provided further evidence to indicate that GH supplementation may support more live births during IVF, in patients with poor embryonic development. It also appears that oocytes generated under GH co-treatment have a better developmental competence.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR1900021992 posted March 19, 2019 (retrospectively registered).

The Concept of Growth Hormone Deficiency Affecting Clinical Prognosis in IVF

The current understanding of human growth hormone (hGH; here GH) action is that the molecule is a 191-amino acid, single-chain polypeptide that is synthesized, stored and secreted by the somatotroph cells within the lateral wings of the anterior pituitary gland. It can be classified as a protein (comprising more than 50 amino acids) but true proteins have tertiary and quaternary chains creating a more complex structure, hence GH is usually classified as a polypeptide. GH is normally secreted at night during sleep and promotes skeletal, visceral and general body growth through the action of somatomedins or IGFs, notably IGF-1. In some tissues, GH action is directed via specific receptors GHRs; these are most abundant in liver, adipose and muscle tissues but have also been shown in granulosa cells, testicular tissues and on the oocyte, as well as in glandular cells of the luteal phase endometrium and decidua; such findings being recent and minimally researched to now. Following engagement with its receptor, the transduction process activates multiple signaling proteins. These all lead to extensive metabolic and mitogenic (growth promoting) responses. Clinically, GH is known to have an important role in pubertal development and is a key hormone for the vigor associated with adolescence and early adult life stages but has a faded presence and role for later adulthood, beyond age 30 years, and is minimally detected in advanced age, beyond 40 years. In association with the rapidly increasing trend for delaying reproduction beyond age 35 years, GH is being widely researched now as a potential adjuvant for infertility treatment in this group who, studies consistently show, have a poorer prognosis than younger females when relying on autologous oocytes. The idea that the age-related reduction in fertility prognosis is a feature of growth hormone deficiency is supported by our studies showing an elevated binding protein IGFBP-3/IGF-1 ratio and this can be reduced to a normal range (matching younger, good prognosis women) by the administration of GH as an adjuvant.

Growth Hormone and Reproduction: Lessons Learned From Animal Models and Clinical Trials

Growth Hormone (GH) has been considered as a therapeutic option to increase the number of growing follicles during Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) for more than 30 years. In this review the biological rationale for therapeutic GH usage is explained through evidence in animal models, aiming to put this into a clinical context. First, we explain the GH-Insulin like Growth Factor (IGF)-1-gonadal axis and its role in reproduction. Evidence suggests that GH can stimulate the secretion of IGF1 not only in the liver but also in the peripheral target structures, including the ovary. Moreover, IGF-1 can be secreted locally under the influence of stimuli other than GH. In the case of the ovary, steroid hormones, gonadotropins or the combination of both seems to be involved. Even more interesting, the ovary itself can secret GH locally and exert a paracrine action modulating the intracellular signaling pathway of GH, i.e., not by the systemic pathway where GH binds to the extracellular domain of the GH receptor. Finally, these aspects from animal models are put into clinical perspective by discussing results and shortcomings of studies and meta-analyses in order to put forth the state-of-the-art rationale for therapeutic GH usage in modern ART.

Effects of growth hormone plus gonadotropins on controlled ovarian stimulation in infertile women of advanced age, poor responders, and previous in vitro fertilization failure patients

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects of growth hormone (GH) cotreatment in ovarian stimulation in infertile women of advanced age, poor responders, and patients with one or more previous IVF treatment failures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective observational study of 436 patients undergoing GH cotreatment in ovarian stimulation. The first arm included 134 infertile women of advanced age. The second arm included 236 patients with one or more IVF previous treatment failures, and the third arm included 66 younger poor responders. Main outcome measures were the number of oocytes and embryos, quality of embryos, and implantation and pregnancy rates.

RESULTS

In infertile women of advanced age, GH plus ovarian stimulation yielded no statistical differences in the numbers of oocytes and embryos, quality of embryo, and rates of implantation and pregnancy. In the second arm, the mature oocyte number (8.2 vs. 6.8), implantation rate (16.1% vs. 0%), and pregnancy rate (33.9% vs. 0%) in the GH cotreatment group differed significantly from those in the control group; the rate of good-quality embryos in the GH cotreatment group improved from 35.5% ± 31.1%-41.4% ± 30.6% in this arm. Similar results were observed in the third arm; in this arm, the clinical pregnancy rate was 30.3% in the GH cotreatment group and 6.1% in the control group.

CONCLUSION

No significant differences were observed in infertile women of advanced age, which may be due to the low GH dose. The GH adjuvant therapy for patients with one or more previous IVF treatment failures and for poor responders significantly improved the oocyte and embryo numbers as well as implantation and pregnancy rates.

Does the addition of growth hormone to the in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection antagonist protocol improve outcomes in poor responders? A randomized, controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of the addition of growth hormone (GH) to the antagonist protocol in IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles in poor responders.

DESIGN

Parallel randomized, controlled, open-label trial.

SETTING

University hospital.

PATIENT(S)

A total of 141 patients (GH, n = 68; gonadotropins only, n = 73) were enrolled. Twenty-five patients had their cycles cancelled. Analysis was performed per cycle start as well as per ET.

INTERVENTION(S)

Patients received the antagonist protocol with or without GH supplementation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Mean number of cumulus complexes, metaphase II oocytes retrieved and fertilized, chemical and clinical pregnancy rates, early miscarriage rate, ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates.

RESULT(S)

The addition of GH significantly lowered duration of hMG treatment, duration of GnRH antagonist treatment, and dose of gonadotropin. It significantly increased mean E2 levels on the day of hCG administration, number of collected oocytes (7.58 ± 1.40 vs. 4.90 ± 1.78 [mean ± SD]), number of metaphase II oocytes (4.53 ± 1.29 vs. 2.53 ± 1.18), number of fertilized oocytes (4.04 ± 0.96 vs. 2.42 ± 1.03), and number of transferred embryos (2.89 ± 0.45 vs. 2.03 ± 0.81). There was no significant difference in the clinical pregnancy rate per cycle (22.1% vs. 15.1%) or live birth rate per cycle (14.7% vs. 10.9%).

CONCLUSION(S)

Growth hormone as an adjuvant treatment in IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles for poor responders should be cautiously used with the antagonist protocol, because there is still no identified impact on pregnancy outcomes. However, evaluation of the clinical pregnancy and live birth rates in our data was limited by low statistical power.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02195947.

Adjuvant growth hormone for ovulation induction with gonadotropins in the treatment of a woman with hypopituitarism

Objective. To report the prestimulation use of adjuvant GH for gonadotropin ovulation induction in a woman with hypopituitarism and GH deficiency who previously failed to respond. Design, Patients, and Measurements. A 31-year-old nulliparous woman presented with hypopituitarism and GH deficiency after failing ovulation induction with high dose gonadotropins. A trial of GH was undertaken for 5 months prior to ovulation induction resulting in normalization of IGF-I levels. Results. Women with hypopituitarism are known to have lower pregnancy rates after ovulation induction with need for higher doses of gonadotropins. A small subset of these patients do not ovulate. This patient had successful ovulation induction and pregnancy with prestimulation GH. Conclusions. This case suggests that the use of adjuvant GH in a GH-deficient patient several months before the use of human menopausal gonadotropin results in ovulation and pregnancy.

Growth hormone co-treatment within a GnRH agonist long protocol in patients with poor ovarian response: a prospective, randomized, clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

The efficacy of growth hormone co-stimulation to long luteal GnRHa regimen in poor responders to COH for IVF was assessed.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized, clinical trial was performed in a private assisted reproduction center. The study involved 61 patients who responded poorly to high dose gonadotropin treatment in their first cycles in the same center. Study group of 31 patients were given growth hormone co-treatment, daily subcutaneous injection of 4 mg from day 21 of preceding cycle along with GnRHa, until the day of hCG. Control group of 30 patients received the same treatment protocol except the growth hormone cotreatment. Primary end-point of the study was the number of oocytes fertilized whereas the pregnancy rate was the secondary end-point.

RESULTS

Patients' demographic characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups. 2PNs in growth hormone co-treatment group was significantly higher than the control group (4.4 +/- 1.8 vs 1.5 +/- 0.9, p < 0.001). Although more pregnancies and more clinical pregnancies with fetal heart beat were achieved in growth hormone group (12/31), compared to the control group (6/30), the difference did not reach to statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

Poor responder women undergoing repeated assisted reproduction treatment and co-stimulated with GH achieve more oocytes, higher fertilization rate if growth hormone started in the luteal phase of previous cycle, as compared with women of the same status treated with GnRHa long protocol. The study was unable to show that clinical pregnancy rate was increased significantly.

Ovulation induction in a poor responder with panhypopituitarism: a case report and review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Most women with panhypopituitarism will undergo successful ovulation induction with gonadotropin therapy. Few proven treatment options exist for those who respond poorly to such therapy. A poor response may indicate diminished ovarian reserve, or reflect a deficiency of other key components for ovarian function.

CASE

A 31-year-old female with panhypopituitarism and a poor response to gonadotropin therapy took growth hormone (GH) replacement for 4 months prior to restarting gonadotropins. When the serum level of insulin-like growth factor-I normalized, she began ovulation induction with gonadotropins with transdermal estradiol. After 63 days of gonadotropin therapy, she had a leading follicle of 18 mm, followed by follicles of 16.5 mm and 15.5 mm. The serum estradiol was 796 pg/ml, and human chorionic gonadotropin was administered. The patient conceived with timed intercourse. A prior attempt at ovulation induction with gonadotropins alone failed to produce follicular development.

CONCLUSION

Prolonged gonadotropin treatment may be necessary to achieve ovulation and avoid the misdiagnosis of ovarian failure. Co-treatment with GH and estrogen may improve the follicular response in a poor responder with panhypopituitarism.

Impaired growth hormone secretion after glucose loading in non-obese women with polycystic ovary syndrome, possibly related to androgen but not insulin and free fatty acids

BACKGROUND

Secretion of growth hormone (GH) is known to be suppressed in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). The suppression may be implicated in the pathogenesis of PCOS.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the cause of suppressive GH secretion in PCOS.

METHODS

In order to eliminate the influence of obesity on the variables, all subjects were non-obese. Standard oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTT) were performed in 13 normal women and 15 patients with PCOS.

RESULTS

The serum GH level decreased progressively during the OGTT, and the mean area under the curve (AUC) for the GH response was significantly smaller in the PCOS group than in the normal group. A reduction in the level of serum free fatty acids (FFAs) was observed during OGTT, but only the fasting level of FFAs was significantly higher in the PCOS group than in the normal group. The mean AUCs for glucose, insulin and FFA responses in the PCOS group were significantly greater than those in the normal group. There was a significant negative correlation only between AUC(GH) and testosterone (r = -0.4557, p = 0.012).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that the cause of susceptibility for GH secretion to be suppressed after glucose loading in non-obese PCOS patients may be hyperandrogenemia.

In vitro fertilization and embryo transfer in seminatural cycles for patients with ovarian aging

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether seminatural cycle is a reasonable management for ovarian aging patients.

DESIGN

Prospective study.

SETTING

ART Unit, Clamart, France.

PATIENT(S)

Seventy-five women, 158 cycles.

INTERVENTION(S)

Infertile women who presented with ovarian aging (defined as low ovarian reserve and characterized by cycle day 3 high FSH, high E2, and/or low inhibin B and/or previous cycle cancellations due to poor ovarian response to COH) were studied. Patients were offered up to three cycles. Treatment was scheduled as follows. From cycle day 8 onward the selection of the dominant follicle was monitored by ultrasound and hormonal measurements. When the dominant follicle appeared, patients received GnRH antagonist and, thereafter, hMG to support further follicular development.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Implantation rate and clinical pregnancy.

RESULT(S)

Twenty-eight of 158 cycles were cancelled (17.7%). Oocyte pickups were performed in 119 (75.3%) cycles, 91 (57.6%) mature oocytes were retrieved, and 67 (42.4%) embryos transferred. Nineteen clinical pregnancies were obtained; the cumulative pregnancy rate per patient, after 3 cycles, was 35.2%.

CONCLUSION(S)

Use of a seminatural cycle is a reasonable management for patients with ovarian aging who have ovulatory menstrual cycles. It achieves a high implantation rate (28.3%).

Ovulation induction and successful pregnancy outcome in two patients with Prop1 gene mutations

OBJECTIVE

To describe ovulation induction and pregnancy outcome in a unique model of genetically determined combined pituitary hormone deficiency (CPHD), with respect to the necessity for GH substitution therapy.

DESIGN

Case report.

SETTING

Academic units.

PATIENT(S)

Two patients with childhood onset of CPHD (GH, PRL, TSH, LH, FSH) caused by a genetic defect (GA296del mutation) of the Prop1 gene.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Ovulation, pregnancy outcome, and fetal growth.

RESULT(S)

Successful pregnancy outcome and delivery of normal, full-term newborns were achieved in both patients with the use of gonadotropins and L-T(4). Growth hormone supplementation was not necessary. No lactation was observed.

CONCLUSION(S)

Patients with Prop1 gene mutations constitute a unique model for studying the role of GH and PRL in ovulation, pregnancy, and fetal growth. Our data indicate that for women with CPHD, ovulation and pregnancy are possible with a classic regimen for hypogonadotropic hypogonadism, without the need for GH substitution therapy.

Successful pregnancy and birth after sequential cotreatment with growth hormone and gonadotropins in a woman with panhypopituitarism: a new treatment protocol

OBJECTIVE

To report a successful pregnancy in a woman with panhypopituitarism who received 3 months of pretreatment with growth hormone (GH) before ovulation induction. Prior attempts at ovulation induction had failed for this patient.

DESIGN

Case report.

SETTING

Department of Endocrinology.

PATIENT(S)

A 32-year-old woman with panhypopituitarism and secondary infertility.

INTERVENTION(S)

GH (1 IU/day) alone for 3 months; during the next cycle, 1 IU/day of GH; 3 ampules of hMG per day during days 1-21; 1 ampule of hCG on day 21. GH was discontinued on day 35 when a pregnancy test was positive.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Pregnancy and delivery.

RESULTS

Pregnancy and birth of a normal child after a single ovulation stimulation using GH and gonadotropins.

CONCLUSION(S)

This case report suggests interest in a new protocol for follicular stimulation in women with hypopituitarism who are responding poorly to gonadotropin therapy.

Evaluating strategies for improving ovarian response of the poor responder undergoing assisted reproductive techniques

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of various controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) regimens in the prior poor-responder patient preparing for assisted reproductive techniques.

DESIGN

English-language literature review.

PATIENT(S)

Candidates for assisted reproductive techniques who had been defined as having a prior suboptimal response to standard COH regimens.

INTERVENTION(S)

A variety of regimes are reviewed, including increased gonadotropin doses, change of gonadotropins, adjunctive growth hormone (GH), luteal phase (long) GnRH agonist (GnRH-a) initiation, early follicular phase (flare) GnRH-a initiation, low-dose luteal phase (ultrashort) GnRH-a initiation, progestin pretreatment, and microdose flare GnRH-a initiation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Maximal serum E(2) levels, follicular development, dose, and duration of gonadotropin therapy, cycle cancellation rates, oocytes retrieved, embryos transferred, and clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates.

RESULT(S)

A lack of uniformity in definition of the poor responder and of prospective randomized trials make data interpretation somewhat difficult. Of the varied strategies proposed, those that seem to be more uniformly beneficial are microdose GnRH-a flare and late luteal phase initiation of a short course of low-dose GnRH-a discontinued before COH.

CONCLUSION(S)

No single regimen will benefit all poor responders. General acceptance of uniform definitions and performance of large-scale prospective randomized trials are critical. Development of a reliable precycle screen will allow effective differentiation among normal responders, poor responders, and those who will not conceive with their own oocytes.