Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist protocols for pituitary suppression in assisted reproduction

被引:4
|
作者
Maheshwari, Abha [1 ]
Gibreel, Ahmed [2 ]
Siristatidis, Charalambos S. [3 ]
Bhattacharya, Siladitya [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Aberdeen, Div Appl Hlth Sci, Aberdeen AB25 2ZL, Scotland
[2] Mansoura Univ, Fac Med, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Mansoura, Egypt
[3] Univ Athens, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol 3, Athens, Greece
[4] Aberdeen Matern Hosp, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Aberdeen, Scotland
关键词
IN-VITRO FERTILIZATION; CONTROLLED OVARIAN HYPERSTIMULATION; GAMETE INTRAFALLOPIAN TRANSFER; GNRH-A PROTOCOL; INVITRO FERTILIZATION; LUTEINIZING-HORMONE; LONG-PROTOCOL; DOWN-REGULATION; LUTEAL-PHASE; LEUPROLIDE ACETATE;
D O I
10.1002/14651858.CD006919
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
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 oocyte. 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.
引用
收藏
页数:90
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist protocols for pituitary suppression in assisted reproduction
    Siristatidis, Charalampos S.
    Gibreel, Ahmed
    Basios, George
    Maheshwari, Abha
    Bhattacharya, Siladitya
    COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2015, (11):
  • [2] Depot versus daily administration of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist protocols for pituitary down regulation in assisted reproduction cycles
    Albuquerque, Luiz Eduardo T.
    Tso, Leopoldo O.
    Saconato, Humberto
    Albuquerque, Maria Cecilia R. M.
    Macedo, Cristiane R.
    COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2013, (01):
  • [3] Depot versus daily administration of gonadotrophin releasing hormone agonist protocols for pituitary desensitization in assisted reproduction cycles
    Albuquerque, LE
    Saconato, H
    Maciel, MC
    COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2005, (01):
  • [4] Serum luteinizing hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone and oestradiol pattern in women undergoing pituitary suppression with different gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogue protocols for assisted reproduction
    Manna, C
    Rahman, A
    Sbracia, M
    Pappalardo, S
    Mohamed, EI
    Linder, R
    Nardo, LG
    GYNECOLOGICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY, 2005, 20 (04) : 188 - 194
  • [5] Artificial preparation of the endometrium with no previous gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist suppression
    Borini, A.
    Dal Prato, L.
    Cattoli, M.
    Bianchi, L.
    Maccolini, A.
    Flamigni, C.
    HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2001, 16 : 119 - 119
  • [6] Revisiting gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist protocols and management of poor ovarian responses to gonadotrophins
    Hugues, JN
    Durnerin, IC
    HUMAN REPRODUCTION UPDATE, 1998, 4 (01) : 83 - 101
  • [7] Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted conception
    Al-Inany, H. G.
    Abou-Setta, A. M.
    Aboulghar, M.
    COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2006, (03):
  • [8] Pregnancy during gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist therapy
    Uncu, G
    Benderli, S
    Esmer, A
    AUSTRALIAN & NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNAECOLOGY, 1996, 36 (04): : 484 - 485
  • [9] GONADOTROPHIN-RELEASING HORMONE
    GANDAR, R
    JOURNAL DE MEDECINE DE STRASBOURG, 1976, 7 (13): : 607 - 612
  • [10] Ovarian suppression in a marsupial following single treatment with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist in microspheres
    Witt, Ryan Robert
    Forbes, Ian Ross
    McBain, John
    Rodger, John Cameron
    REPRODUCTION FERTILITY AND DEVELOPMENT, 2016, 28 (12) : 1964 - 1973