Cessation of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist on triggering day: an alternative method for flexible multiple-dose protocol

GnRH Antagonist Protocol With Cessation of Cetrorelix on Trigger Day Improves Embryological Outcomes for Patients With Sufficient Ovarian Reserve

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficiency and validity of cessation of cetrorelix on trigger day during gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant)-controlled ovarian stimulation of in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, a total of 1271 patients undergoing initial IVF cycles following the GnRH-ant protocol were enrolled; 832 patients received cetrorelix on trigger day (Group A) and 439 patients ceased cetrorelix on trigger day (Group B). We compared demographic characteristics, embryological and clinical outcomes between the two groups. A Poisson regression model was used to identify factors that significantly affected embryological outcomes. Patients were further divided into subgroups according to anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) and age, to assess associations between ceasing cetrorelix on trigger day and embryological outcomes.

RESULTS

There was a significant improvement on embryological outcomes in patients who ceased cetrorelix on trigger day, and there were no significant differences in clinical outcomes or preovulation rates between the two groups. Furthermore, for patients with 1.1 ≤ AMH ≤ 4.7 ng/ml, all embryological outcomes were significantly higher in Group B compared with Group A. For patients with AMH > 4.7 ng/ml, the number of oocytes retrieved, fertilization rate (2PN) of IVF cycles and proportion of day 3 good quality embryos were all significantly higher in Group B. For patients with age < 35 years, all the embryological outcomes, besides the number of available embryos, were significantly higher in Group B than in Group A. There were no differences in embryological outcomes between the two groups when patients were stratified based on age > 35 years or AMH < 1.1 ng/ml.

CONCLUSION

GnRH-ant protocol with cessation of cetrorelix on trigger day improved embryological outcomes for young patients or patients with sufficient ovarian reserve, and was effective at preventing preovulation.

Luteal phase support for assisted reproduction cycles

BACKGROUND

Progesterone prepares the endometrium for pregnancy by stimulating proliferation in response to human chorionic gonadotropin(hCG) produced by the corpus luteum. This occurs in the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. In assisted reproduction techniques(ART), progesterone and/or hCG levels are low, so the luteal phase is supported with progesterone, hCG or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists to improve implantation and pregnancy rates.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the relative effectiveness and safety of methods of luteal phase support provided to subfertile women undergoing assisted reproduction.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched databases including the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and trial registers. We conducted searches in November 2014, and further searches on 4 August 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of luteal phase support using progesterone, hCG or GnRH agonist supplementation in ART cycles.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95%confidence intervals (CIs) for each comparison and combined data when appropriate using a fixed-effect model. Our primary out come was live birth or ongoing pregnancy. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

Ninety-four women RCTs (26,198 women) were included. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias in most domains. The main limitations in the evidence were poor reporting of study methods and imprecision due to small sample sizes.1. hCG vs placebo/no treatment (five RCTs, 746 women)There was no evidence of differences between groups in live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.12, three RCTs,527 women, I2 = 24%, very low-quality evidence, but I2 of 61% was found for the subgroup of ongoing pregnancy) with a random effects model. hCG increased the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (1 RCT, OR 4.28, 95% CI 1.91 to 9.6, low quality evidence).2. Progesterone vs placebo/no treatment (eight RCTs, 875 women)Evidence suggests a higher rate of live birth or ongoing pregnancy in the progesterone group (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.86, five RCTs, 642 women, I2 = 35%, very low-quality evidence). OHSS was not reported.3. Progesterone vs hCG regimens (16 RCTs, 2162 women)hCG regimens included comparisons of progesterone versus hCG and progesterone versus progesterone + hCG. No evidence showed differences between groups in live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.38, five RCTs, 833 women, I2 = 0%, low quality evidence) or in the risk of OHSS (four RCTs, 615 women, progesterone vs hCG OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.34; four RCTs,678 women; progesterone vs progesterone plus hCG, OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.26, low-quality evidence).4. Progesterone vs progesterone with oestrogen (16 RCTs, 2577 women)No evidence was found of differences between groups in live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.38, nine RCTs,1651 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence) or OHSS (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.63, two RCTs, 461 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence).5. Progesterone vs progesterone + GnRH agonist (seven RCTs, 1708 women)Live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates were lower in the progesterone-only group and increased in women who received progester one and one or more GnRH agonist doses (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.81, nine RCTs, 2861 women, I2 = 55%, random effects, low quality evidence). Statistical heterogeneity for this comparison was high because of unexplained variation in the effect size, but the direction of effect was consistent across studies. OHSS was reported in one study only (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 3.01, 1 RCT, 300 women, very low quality evidence).6. Progesterone regimens (45 RCTs, 13,814 women)The included studies reported nine different comparisons between progesterone regimens. Findings for live birth or ongoing pregnancy were as follows: intramuscular (IM) versus oral: OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.66 (one RCT, 40 women, very low-quality evidence);IM versus vaginal/rectal: OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.5 (seven RCTs, 2309 women, I2 = 71%, very low-quality evidence); vaginal/rectal versus oral: OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.69 (four RCTs, 857 women, I2 = 32%, low-quality evidence); low-dose versus high-dose vaginal: OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11 (five RCTs, 3720 women, I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence); short versus long protocol:OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.36 (five RCTs, 1205 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence); micronised versus synthetic: OR 0.9, 95%CI 0.53 to 1.55 (two RCTs, 470 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence); vaginal ring versus gel: OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.36 (oneRCT, 1271 women, low-quality evidence); subcutaneous versus vaginal gel: OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14 (two RCTs, 1465 women,I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence); and vaginal versus rectal: OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.54 (one RCT, 147 women, very low-quality evidence). OHSS rates were reported for only two of these comparisons: IM versus oral, and low versus high-dose vaginal. No evidence showed a difference between groups.7. Progesterone and oestrogen regimens (two RCTs, 1195 women)The included studies compared two different oestrogen protocols. No evidence was found to suggest differences in live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates between a short and a long protocol (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.43, one RCT, 910 women, low-quality evidence) or between a low dose and a high dose of oestrogen (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.13, one RCT, 285 women, very low-quality evidence).Neither study reported OHSS.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Both progesterone and hCG during the luteal phase are associated with higher rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy than placebo.The addition of GnRHa to progesterone is associated with an improvement in pregnancy outcomes. OHSS rates are increased with hCG compared to placebo (only study only). The addition of oestrogen does not seem to improve outcomes. The route of progester one administration is not associated with an improvement in outcomes.

Timing of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) hormone administration in IVF/ICSI protocols using GnRH agonist or antagonists: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of altering the timing of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) administration on the clinical outcome of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) using gonadotropic hormone releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist or antagonist.

METHODS

We systematically searched six databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the effects of altering the timing of hCG administration on the clinical outcome of IVF and ICSI using GnRH agonist or antagonist were included. A meta-analysis was conducted following a quality evaluation performed with Cochrane Collaboration's Review Manager (RevMan) 5.0.2.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs and a total of 1295 participants were included. Significant difference was observed regarding estradiol and progesterone levels on the day of hCG administration and oocyte retrieval between early hCG and late hCG administration group and in favor of the latter. The fertilization rate was not statistically different between early and 24-h late hCG groups, but it is significantly higher in the 48-h late hCG group. The pooled results showed no significant differences in the ongoing pregnancy rate per oocyte pick-up, the miscarriage rate and the live birth rate.

CONCLUSION

The prolongation of follicular phase by delaying hCG administration could increase estradiol, progesterone levels and oocyte retrieval, which will not influence ongoing pregnancy rate per oocyte pick-up, miscarriage rate and live birth rate. Postponing hCG may enable increased flexibility of cycle scheduling to avoid weekend procedures.

Relationship between follicular fluid adipocytokines and the quality of the oocyte and corresponding embryo development from a single dominant follicle in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association of individual follicular fluid (FF) leptin and adiponectin levels with the quality of the corresponding oocyte and embryo.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled 67 women who underwent controlled ovarian hyperstimulation with 89 FF samples. FF and the corresponding oocyte was obtained from a single dominant preovulatory follicle at the time of oocyte retrieval. Concentrations of leptin and adiponectin were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in an individual follicle. The oocyte quality, fertilization rate, and corresponding embryo development were assessed.

RESULTS

The FF level of leptin was significantly associated with body mass index (r=0.334, p<0.01). The FF adiponectin level was significantly higher in the normal fertilization group than the abnormal fertilization group (p=0.009) in the non-obese women. A lower FF leptin level was associated with a trend toward mature oocytes, normal fertilization, and good embryo quality, although these relationships were not statistically significant. The leptin:adiponectin ratio of FF did not differ significantly according to oocyte and embryo quality. The quality of the oocyte and embryo was not associated with the FF leptin level tertile. However, the normal fertilization rate was positively associated with FF adiponectin level tertile. There was a trend towards improved oocytes and normal fertilization rates with the lowest tertile of the FF leptin:adiponectin ratio, but this difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that a high FF adiponectin concentration could be a predictor of normal fertilization. However, the FF leptin concentration and leptin:adiponectin ratio is not significantly related to oocyte maturity and corresponding embryo development.

Cessation of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist on triggering day in flexible multiple-dose protocol: A randomized controlled study

Objective

To investigate outcomes of stimulated IVF cycles in which GnRH antagonist was omitted on the ovulation triggering day.

Methods

A total of 86 women who underwent controlled ovarian hyperstimulation with recombinant FSH and GnRH antagonist flexible multiple-dose protocols were recruited and prospectively randomized into the conventional group (group A) or cessation group (group B). The GnRH antagonist, 0.25 mg/day of cetrorelix, was started when the leading follicle reached 14 mm in diameter and was continuously administered until the hCG triggering day (group A, 43 cycles) or until the day before hCG administration (group B, 43 cycles). The maturity of oocytes, fertilization rate, embryo quality, and implantation and clinical pregnancy rates were evaluated.

Results

The duration of ovarian stimulation, total dose of gonadotropins, serum estradiol levels on hCG administration day, and number of oocytes retrieved were not significantly different between the two groups. The total dose of GnRH antagonist was significantly lower in group B than group A (2.5±0.9 vs. 3.2±0.8 ampoules, p<0.05). There was no premature luteinization in any of the subjects. The proportion of mature oocytes and fertilization rate were not significantly different in group B than group A (70.7% vs. 66.7%; 71.1% vs. 66.4%, respectively). There were no significant differences in the implantation or clinical pregnancy rates.

Conclusion

Our prospective randomized study suggested that cessation of GnRH antagonist on the hCG administration day during a flexible multiple-dose protocol could reduce the total dose of GnRH antagonist without compromising its effects on pregnancy rates.

Luteal phase support for assisted reproduction cycles

BACKGROUND

Progesterone prepares the endometrium for pregnancy by stimulating proliferation in response to human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), which is produced by the corpus luteum. This occurs in the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. In assisted reproduction techniques (ART) the progesterone or hCG levels, or both, are low and the natural process is insufficient, so the luteal phase is supported with either progesterone, hCG or gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists. Luteal phase support improves implantation rate and thus pregnancy rates but the ideal method is still unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2004 (Daya 2004).

OBJECTIVES

To determine the relative effectiveness and safety of methods of luteal phase support in subfertile women undergoing assisted reproductive technology.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), LILACS, conference abstracts on the ISI Web of Knowledge, OpenSigle for grey literature from Europe, and ongoing clinical trials registered online. The final search was in February 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of luteal phase support in ART investigating progesterone, hCG or GnRH agonist supplementation in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles. Quasi-randomised trials and trials using frozen transfers or donor oocyte cycles were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data per women and three review authors independently assessed risk of bias. We contacted the original authors when data were missing or the risk of bias was unclear. We entered all data in six different comparisons. We calculated the Peto odds ratio (Peto OR) for each comparison.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-nine studies with a total of 16,327 women were included. We assessed most of the studies as having an unclear risk of bias, which we interpreted as a high risk of bias. Because of the great number of different comparisons, the average number of included studies in a single comparison was only 1.5 for live birth and 6.1 for clinical pregnancy.Five studies (746 women) compared hCG versus placebo or no treatment. There was no evidence of a difference between hCG and placebo or no treatment except for ongoing pregnancy: Peto OR 1.75 (95% CI 1.09 to 2.81), suggesting a benefit from hCG. There was a significantly higher risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) when hCG was used (Peto OR 3.62, 95% CI 1.85 to 7.06).There were eight studies (875 women) in the second comparison, progesterone versus placebo or no treatment. The results suggested a significant effect in favour of progesterone for the live birth rate (Peto OR 2.95, 95% CI 1.02 to 8.56) based on one study. For clinical pregnancy (CPR) the results also suggested a significant result in favour of progesterone (Peto OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.61) based on seven studies. For the other outcomes the results indicated no difference in effect.The third comparison (15 studies, 2117 women) investigated progesterone versus hCG regimens. The hCG regimens were subgrouped into comparisons of progesterone versus hCG and progesterone versus progesterone + hCG. The results did not indicate a difference of effect between the interventions, except for OHSS. Subgroup analysis of progesterone versus progesterone + hCG showed a significant benefit from progesterone (Peto OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.79).The fourth comparison (nine studies, 1571 women) compared progesterone versus progesterone + oestrogen. Outcomes were subgrouped by route of administration. The results for clinical pregnancy rate in the subgroup progesterone versus progesterone + transdermal oestrogen suggested a significant benefit from progesterone + oestrogen. There was no evidence of a difference in effect for other outcomes.Six studies (1646 women) investigated progesterone versus progesterone + GnRH agonist. We subgrouped the studies for single-dose GnRH agonist and multiple-dose GnRH agonist. For the live birth, clinical pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy rate the results suggested a significant effect in favour of progesterone + GnRH agonist. The Peto OR for the live birth rate was 2.44 (95% CI 1.62 to 3.67), for the clinical pregnancy rate was 1.36 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.66) and for the ongoing pregnancy rate was 1.31 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.67). The results for miscarriage and multiple pregnancy did not indicate a difference of effect.The last comparison (32 studies, 9839 women) investigated different progesterone regimens:intramuscular (IM) versus oral administration, IM versus vaginal or rectal administration, vaginal or rectal versus oral administration, low-dose vaginal versus high-dose vaginal progesterone administration, short protocol versus long protocol and micronized progesterone versus synthetic progesterone. The main results of this comparison did not indicate a difference of effect except in some subgroup analyses. For the outcome clinical pregnancy, subgroup analysis of micronized progesterone versus synthetic progesterone showed a significant benefit from synthetic progesterone (Peto OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.96). For the outcome multiple pregnancy, the subgroup analysis of IM progesterone versus oral progesterone suggested a significant benefit from oral progesterone (Peto OR 4.39, 95% CI 1.28 to 15.01).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review showed a significant effect in favour of progesterone for luteal phase support, favouring synthetic progesterone over micronized progesterone. Overall, the addition of other substances such as estrogen or hCG did not seem to improve outcomes. We also found no evidence favouring a specific route or duration of administration of progesterone. We found that hCG, or hCG plus progesterone, was associated with a higher risk of OHSS. The use of hCG should therefore be avoided. There were significant results showing a benefit from addition of GnRH agonist to progesterone for the outcomes of live birth, clinical pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy. For now, progesterone seems to be the best option as luteal phase support, with better pregnancy results when synthetic progesterone is used.