Comparing ART outcomes in women with endometriosis after GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist ovarian stimulation: a systematic review

被引:5
|
作者
Kuan, Kevin K. W. [4 ,5 ]
Omoseni, Sean [4 ]
Tello, Javier A. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ St Andrews, Sch Med, St Andrews KY16 9TF, Scotland
[2] Univ St Andrews, Biomed Sci Res Complex, St Andrews, Scotland
[3] Univ St Andrews, Ctr Biophoton, St Andrews, Scotland
[4] Univ St Andrews, Sch Med, St Andrews, Scotland
[5] Univ Edinburgh, Edinburgh Med Sch, Edinburgh, Scotland
关键词
assisted reproductive technology; endometriosis; GnRH agonist; GnRH antagonist; infertility; ovarian stimulation; FERTILIZATION RATE; LIVE BIRTH; IVF; PROTOCOLS; HYPERSTIMULATION; INFERTILITY; CYCLES;
D O I
10.1177/20420188231173325
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background:Endometriosis is an oestrogen-dependent disease that can cause subfertility in women who may require assisted reproductive technology (ART) to achieve their pregnancy goals. Objectives:The aim of this study was to compare ART outcomes in women with endometriosis following the long GnRH-agonist controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) protocol with those taking the GnRH-antagonist COS protocol. Data Sources and Methods:MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science were systematically searched in June 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing the long GnRH-agonist COS protocol and the GnRH-antagonist COS protocol in women with all stages/subtypes of endometriosis were included. Data were synthesized into comprehensive tables for systematic review. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) checklists were used for the risk of bias assessment of non-randomized studies and randomized studies, and all the included studies were deemed to have acceptable quality. Main Results:Eight studies (one RCT and seven observational) with 2695 patients (2761 cycles) were included. Most studies generally reported non-significant differences in clinical pregnancy or live birth rates regardless of the COS protocol used. However, the GnRH-agonist protocol may yield a higher total number of oocytes retrieved, especially mature oocytes. Conversely, the GnRH-antagonist protocol required a shorter COS duration and lower gonadotrophin dose. Adverse outcomes, such as rates of cycle cancellation and miscarriage, were similar between both COS protocols. Conclusion:Both the long GnRH-agonist and GnRH-antagonist COS protocols generally yield similar pregnancy outcomes. However, the long GnRH-agonist protocol may be associated with a higher cumulative pregnancy rate due to the higher number of retrieved oocytes available for cryopreservation. The underlying mechanisms of the two COS protocols on the female reproductive tract remain unclear. Clinicians should consider treatment costs, stage/subtype of endometriosis and pregnancy goals of their patients when selecting a GnRH analogue for COS. A well-powered RCT is needed to minimize the risk of bias and compare the risk for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Registration:This review was prospectively registered at PROSPERO under Registration No. CRD42022327604.
引用
收藏
页数:19
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Stop GnRH-agonist/GnRH-antagonist protocol: a different insight on ovarian stimulation for IVF
    Raoul Orvieto
    [J]. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, 21
  • [32] GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: their role in patients with an unfavorable prognosis a priori
    Orvieto, Raoul
    Homburg, Roy
    Meltcer, Simion
    Rabinson, Jacob
    Anteby, Eyal Y.
    Scharf, Shimon
    [J]. FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2009, 91 (04) : 1378 - 1380
  • [33] Comparison of the luteal phase after pituitary suppression with GnRH-agonist versus GnRH antagonist in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation.
    Willman, SP
    Kliman, HJ
    [J]. FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2005, 84 : S308 - S308
  • [34] GnRH agonist for triggering final oocyte maturation in the GnRH antagonist ovarian hyperstimulation protocol: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Griesinger, G
    Diedrich, K
    Devroey, P
    Kolibianakis, EM
    [J]. HUMAN REPRODUCTION UPDATE, 2006, 12 (02) : 159 - 168
  • [35] Perinatal outcomes in 521 gestations after fresh and frozen cycles: a secondary outcome of a randomized controlled trial comparing GnRH antagonist versus GnRH agonist protocols
    Tomas, Claudia
    Toftager, Mette
    Lossl, Kristine
    Bogstad, Jeanette
    Praetorius, Lisbeth
    Zedeler, Anne
    Bryndorf, Thue
    Andersen, Anders Nyboe
    Pinborg, Anja
    [J]. REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE, 2019, 39 (04) : 659 - 664
  • [36] Luteal phase oestradiol administration in ovarian stimulation cycles with GnRH antagonist is comparable to the GnRH agonist (long) protocol
    Filho, J. S. Cunha
    Terres, L. F.
    Holanda, F.
    Freitas, F.
    Glitz, C.
    Genro, V. K.
    Arbo, E.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ASSISTED REPRODUCTION AND GENETICS, 2007, 24 (08) : 326 - 330
  • [37] Luteal phase oestradiol administration in ovarian stimulation cycles with GnRH antagonist is comparable to the GnRH agonist (long) protocol
    J. S. Cunha Filho
    L. F. Terres
    F. Holanda
    F. Freitas
    C. Glitz
    V. K. Genro
    E. Arbo
    [J]. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 2007, 24 : 326 - 330
  • [38] Oral GnRH Antagonist Ovarian Suppression After Escape From GnRH Agonist in Breast Cancer Patients
    Coyne, Kathryn
    Silverman, Paula
    Liu, James H.
    [J]. CLINICAL BREAST CANCER, 2020, 20 (05) : E551 - E554
  • [39] A randomized prospective trial comparing alternate day GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in IVF cycles.
    Karatekeli, E
    Ozornek, H
    Ergin, E
    Jamal, H
    [J]. FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2004, 82 : S121 - S121
  • [40] Similar outcome for cryopreserved embryo transfer following GnRH-antagonist/GnRH-agonist, GnRH-antagonist/HCG or long protocol ovarian stimulation
    Eldar-Geva, Talia
    Zylber-Haran, Edit
    Babayof, Rachel
    Halevy-Shalem, Tamar
    Ben-Chetrit, Avraharn
    Tsafrir, Avi
    Varshaver, Irit
    Brooks, Baruch
    Margalioth, Ehud J.
    [J]. REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE, 2007, 14 (02) : 148 - 154