The effect of growth hormone on granulosa cell function during in-vitro fertilization

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.

Glucocorticoid supplementation during ovarian stimulation for IVF or ICSI

BACKGROUND

Ovarian response to stimulation during in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) plays an important role in determining live birth rates. Adjuvant treatments during ovarian stimulation that have different modes of action have been used to improve ovarian response to stimulation and outcome of IVF. Glucocorticoids (GCs) are a class of steroid hormones that have been used either alone or in combination with other stimulatory regimens in order to improve folliculogenesis and pregnancy rates. However, considerable uncertainty remains over whether administration of glucocorticoid during ovarian stimulation until oocyte recovery is superior to no glucocorticoid in improving live birth rates in women undergoing IVF/ICSI.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the safety and effectiveness of systemic glucocorticoids during ovarian stimulation for IVF and ICSI cycles.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO from inception to 10 October 2016. We handsearched reference lists of articles, trial registers and relevant conference proceedings and contacted researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing adjuvant treatment with systemic glucocorticoids during ovarian stimulation for IVF or ICSI cycles versus no adjuvant treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted the data. Our primary outcome was live birth. Secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, miscarriage, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and side-effects. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and pooled the data using a fixed-effect model. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

Four RCTs were included in the review (416 women). The trials compared glucocorticoid supplementation during IVF stimulation versus placebo. Two of the studies had data in a form that we could not enter into analysis, so results include data from only two trials (310) women. For the outcome of live birth, data were available for only 212 women, as the larger study had data available from only one study centre.One of the studies gave inadequate description of randomisation methods, but the other was at low risk of bias in all domains. The evidence was rated as low or very low quality for all outcomes, mainly due to imprecision, with low sample sizes and few events.There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any difference between the groups in live birth rate (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.58; 2 RCTs, n = 212, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). Our findings suggest that if the chance of live birth with placebo is assumed to be 15%, the chance following supplementation would be between 7% and 31%. There was no conclusive evidence of a difference in the clinical pregnancy rate (OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.90; 2 RCTs, n = 310, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence).The evidence suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy with placebo is assumed to be 24%, the chance following treatment with glucocorticoid supplementation would be between 23% and 47%. There was also insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any difference between the groups in multiple-pregnancy rate (OR 3.32 , 95% CI 0.12 to 91.60; 1 RCT , n = 20, very low-quality evidence) or miscarriage rate (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.05 to 18.57; 1 RCT, n = 20, very low-quality evidence). Neither of the studies reported OHSS or side-effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The safety and effectiveness of glucocorticoid administration in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for IVF/ICSI cycles (until the day of oocyte retrieval) is unclear due to the small number of studies and low event rates. Whilst glucocorticoids possible increase the clinical pregnancy rate, there may be little or no impact on live birth rate. More research is needed.

Growth hormone for in vitro fertilization

BACKGROUND

In an effort to improve outcomes of in-vitro fertilisation cycles the use of growth hormone has been considered. Improving the outcomes of in-vitro fertilisation is especially important for subfertile women who are considered 'poor responders'.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of adjuvant growth hormone in in-vitro fertilisation protocols.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Groups trials register (June 2009), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2009), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2009), EMBASE (1988 to June 2009) and Biological Abstracts (1969 to June 2009).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials were included if they addressed the research question and provided outcome data for intervention and control participants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Assessment of trial risk of bias and extraction of relevant data was performed independently by two reviewers.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten studies (440 subfertile couples) were included. Results of the meta-analysis demonstrated no difference in outcome measures and adverse events in the routine use of adjuvant growth hormone in in-vitro fertilisation protocols. However, meta-analysis demonstrated a statistically significant difference in both live birth rates and pregnancy rates favouring the use of adjuvant growth hormone in in-vitro fertilisation protocols in women who are considered poor responders without increasing adverse events, OR 5.39, 95% CI 1.89 to 15.35 and OR 3.28, 95% CI 1.74 to 6.20 respectively.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although the use of growth hormone in poor responders has been found to show a significant improvement in live birth rates, we were unable to identify which sub-group of poor responders would benefit the most from adjuvant growth hormone. The result needs to be interpreted with caution, the included trials were few in number and small sample size. Therefore, before recommending growth hormone adjuvant in in-vitro fertilisation further research is necessary to fully define its role.

Growth hormone for in vitro fertilization

BACKGROUND

In an effort to improve outcomes of in-vitro fertilisation cycles the use of growth hormone has been considered. Improving the outcomes of in-vitro fertilisation is especially important for subfertile women who are considered 'poor responders'.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of adjuvant growth hormone in in-vitro fertilisation protocols.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Groups trials register (June 2009), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2009), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2009), EMBASE (1988 to June 2009) and Biological Abstracts (1969 to June 2009).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials were included if they addressed the research question and provided outcome data for intervention and control participants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Assessment of trial risk of bias and extraction of relevant data was performed independently by two reviewers.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten studies (440 subfertile couples) were included. Results of the meta-analysis demonstrated no difference in outcome measures and adverse events in the routine use of adjuvant growth hormone in in-vitro fertilisation protocols. However, meta-analysis demonstrated a statistically significant difference in both live birth rates and pregnancy rates favouring the use of adjuvant growth hormone in in-vitro fertilisation protocols in women who are considered poor responders without increasing adverse events, OR 5.39, 95% CI 1.89 to 15.35 and OR 3.28, 95% CI 1.74 to 6.20 respectively.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although the use of growth hormone in poor responders has been found to show a significant improvement in live birth rates, we were unable to identify which sub-group of poor responders would benefit the most from adjuvant growth hormone. The result needs to be interpreted with caution, the included trials were few in number and small sample size. Therefore, before recommending growth hormone adjuvant in in-vitro fertilisation further research is necessary to fully define its role.

Growth hormone for in vitro fertilization

BACKGROUND

In an effort to improve outcomes of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycles the use of growth hormone (GH) has been considered. Most studies investigate the role of GH in normally ovulating infertile women but there is also an interest in the effect of GH on women who respond poorly to ovulation induction and IVF.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of GH or growth hormone releasing (GRF) adjuvant therapy, primarily in terms of improving livebirth rate, for women undergoing ovulation induction prior to IVF in (a) patients with no previous history of poor response and (b) patients with a history of poor response.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's trials register (24 March 2003), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2003), MEDLINE (1966 to Feb 2003), EMBASE (1988 to Feb 2003) and Biological Abstracts (1969 to Feb 2003). Reference lists of articles were also searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials were included if they addressed the research question and provided outcome data for intervention and control subjects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Assessment of trial quality and extraction of relevant data was performed independently by two reviewers. Validity was assessed in terms of method of randomisation, completeness of follow-up and co-intervention.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine studies (401 couples) were included. Three trials concerned patients with no history of poor response to IVF (91 women) and six investigated previous poor responders (302 women). There was no evidence that routine use of GH affected the outcome of livebirth (3 RCTs; OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.59). In women who had previously responded poorly to IVF there was no significant differences in livebirth when combining trials of GH and GRF (4 RCTs; OR 2.42, 95% CI 0.94 to 6.23). However when trials using GH were analysed separately there was an increase in livebirths (3 RCTs; OR 4.37, 95% CI 1.06 to 18.01). There was no significant differences in any adverse events, but these were poorly and inconsistently reported.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Although the use of GH in previous poor responders has been found to show a significant improvement in livebirth rate, this result was only just significant. Also, this data is from just three small trials. Therefore, before recommending GH in IVF further research is necessary to fully define its role. Meanwhile GH should only be considered in the context of a clinical trial.