Risk of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in GnRH antagonist versus GnRH agonist protocol: RCT including 1050 first IVF/ICSI cycles

被引:103
|
作者
Toftager, M. [1 ]
Bogstad, J. [1 ]
Bryndorf, T. [1 ]
Lossl, K. [1 ]
Roskaer, J. [2 ]
Holland, T. [1 ]
Praetorius, L. [1 ]
Zedeler, A. [1 ]
Nilas, L. [3 ]
Pinborg, A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Hvidovre Univ Hosp, Fertil Clin Sect 455, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Kettegard Alle 30, DK-2650 Copenhagen, Denmark
[2] Aalborg Univ Hosp, Fertil Clin, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Dronninglund, Denmark
[3] Hvidovre Univ Hosp, Sect Gen Gynaecol, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, DK-2650 Copenhagen, Denmark
关键词
ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome; live birth rate; pregnancy rate; on-going pregnancy rate; infertility; IVF; GnRH antagonist; GnRH agonist; FINAL OOCYTE MATURATION; HORMONE; IVF; GONADOTROPINS; WOMEN;
D O I
10.1093/humrep/dew051
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Is the risk of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) similar in a short GnRH antagonist and long GnRH agonist protocol in first cycle IVF/ICSI patients less than 40 years of age?. There is an increased risk of severe OHSS in the long GnRH agonist group compared with the short GnRH antagonist protocol. In the most recent Cochrane review, the GnRH antagonist protocol was associated with a similar live birth rate (LBR), a similar on-going pregnancy rate (OPR), and a lower incidence of OHSS (odds ratio (OR) = 0.43 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.33-0.57) compared with the traditional GnRH agonist protocol. Previous trials comparing the two protocols mainly included selected patient populations, a limited number of patients and the applied OHSS criteria differed, making direct comparisons difficult. In two recent large meta-analyses, no significant differences in LBR (OR = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.72-1.02) or in the incidence of severe OHSS were reported, while others found a lower LBR (OR = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.68-0.97) and a reduced risk of severe OHSS using the GnRH antagonist protocol (OR = 0.60; 95% CI: 0.40-0.88). Phase IV, dual-centre, open-label, RCT including 1050 women allocated to either short GnRH antagonist or long GnRH agonist protocol in a 1:1 ratio and enrolled over a 5-year period using a web-based concealed randomization code. This is a superiority study designed to detect a difference in severe OHSS, the primary outcome, between the two groups with a power of 80% and stratified for age, assisted reproductive technology (ART) clinic and planned fertilization procedure (IVF/ICSI). The secondary aims were to compare rates of mild and moderate OHSS, positive plasma (p)-hCG, on-going pregnancy and live birth between the two arms. None of the women had undergone previous ART treatment. All infertile women referred for their first IVF/ICSI at two public fertility clinics, less than 40 years of age and with no uterine malformations were asked to participate. A total of 1099 subjects were randomized, including women with poor ovarian reserve, polycystic ovary syndrome and irregular cycles. A total of 49 women withdrew their consent, thus 1050 subjects were allocated to the GnRH antagonist (n = 534) and agonist protocol (n = 516), respectively. In total 1023 women started recombinant human follitropin-beta (rFSH) stimulation, 528 in the GnRH antagonist group and 495 in the GnRH agonist group. All subjects were given a fixed rFSH dose of 150 IU or 225 IU according to age a parts per thousand currency sign36 years or > 36 years, with the option to adjust dose at stimulation day 6. Clinical OHSS parameters were collected at oocyte retrieval, and Days 3 and 14 post-transfer. On-going pregnancy was determined by transvaginal ultrasonography at gestational weeks 7-9. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis for reproductive outcomes, 1050 subjects were included. For the ITT analyses on OHSS 1023 subjects who started gonadotrophin stimulation were included. The incidence of severe OHSS [5.1% (27/528) versus 8.9% (44/495) (difference in proportion percentage point (Delta pp) = -3.8pp; 95% CI: -7.1 to -0.4; P = 0.02)] and moderate OHSS [10.2% (54/528) versus 15.6% (77/495) (Delta pp = -5.3pp; 95% CI: -9.6 to -1.0; P = 0.01) ] was significantly lower in the GnRH antagonist group compared with the agonist group, respectively. In the GnRH antagonist and agonist group, respectively, 4.7% (25/528) versus 8.5% (42/495) women were seen by a physician due to OHSS (P = 0.01), and 1.7% (9/528) versus 3.6% (18/495) were admitted to hospital due to OHSS (P = 0.06). No women had ascites-puncture in the GnRH antagonist group versus 2.0% (10/495) in the GnRH agonist group (P < 0.01). LBRs were 22.8% (122/534) versus 23.8% (123/516) (Delta pp = -1.0pp; 95% CI: -6.3 to 4.3; P = 0.70) and OPRs were 24.9% (133/528) versus 26.2% (135/516) (Delta pp = -1.3pp; 95% CI: -6.7 to 4.2; P = 0.64) per randomized subject in the GnRH antagonist versus agonist group, with a mean number of 1.1 versus 1.2 embryos transferred in the two groups. Pregnancy rates (PR) per randomized subject, per started gonadotrophin stimulation and per embryo transfer were all similar in the two groups. A possible limitation is the duration of the trial, with new methods, such as 'freeze all' and 'GnRH agonist triggering', being developed during the trial, the new methods were sought avoided, however a total number of 32 women had 'freeze all' and 'GnRH agonist triggering' was performed in three cases. Ultrasonic measurements were performed by different physicians and inter-observer bias may be present. Measures of anti-Mullerian hormone and antral follicle count, to estimate ovarian reserve and thus predict risk of OHSS, were not performed. Finally, the physicians were not blinded to GnRH treatment group after randomization. The short GnRH antagonist protocol should be the protocol of choice for patients undergoing their first ART cycle in females < 40 years of age including both low and high responders when an age-dependent initially fixed gonadotrophin dose is used, as an increased risk of severe OHSS and the associated complications is seen in the long GnRH agonist group and as PRs and LBRs are similar in the two groups. Patients at risk of OHSS particularly benefit from the short GnRH antagonist treatment as GnRH agonist triggering can be used. An unrestricted research grant is funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA (MSD). The funders had no influence on the data collection, analyses or conclusions of the study. No conflict of interests to declare. Trial registration number: EudraCT #: 2008-005452-24. ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT00756028. Trial registration date: 18 September 2008. Date of first patient's enrolment: 14 January 2009.
引用
收藏
页码:1253 / 1264
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Pregnancy rates and risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) in a fixed GnRH-antagonist versus GnRH-agonist protocol: randomized controlled trial including 1099 first IVF/ICSI cycles
    Toftager, M.
    Bogstad, J.
    Lossl, K.
    Praetorius, L.
    Zedeler, A.
    Bryndorf, T.
    Nilas, L.
    Pinborg, A.
    [J]. HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2015, 30 : 94 - 95
  • [2] GnRH antagonist rescue of a short-protocol IVF/ICSI cycle and GnRH agonist triggering to prevent ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: two case reports
    Bakas, P.
    Boutas, I.
    Giner, M.
    Panagopoulos, P.
    Aravantinos, L.
    [J]. CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2017, 44 (02): : 279 - 282
  • [3] GnRH agonist trigger versus hCG trigger in GnRH antagonist in IVF/ICSI cycles: A review article
    Alyasin, Ashraf
    Mehdinejadiani, Shayesteh
    Ghasemi, Marzieh
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE, 2016, 14 (09) : 557 - 566
  • [4] GnRH agonist stop antagonist protocol versus GnRH antagonist protocol in ovarian poor responders undergoing IVF
    Khezri, Atefeh
    Kashani, Ladan
    Moini, Ashraf
    Mojtahedi, Maryam Farid
    Yamini, Nazila
    Ataee, Mina
    [J]. REVISTA LATINOAMERICANA DE HIPERTENSION, 2022, 17 (01): : 46 - 52
  • [5] Comparisons of GnRH antagonist versus GnRH agonist protocol in poor ovarian responders undergoing IVF
    Pu, Danhua
    Wu, Jie
    Liu, Jiayin
    [J]. HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2011, 26 (10) : 2742 - 2749
  • [6] GNRH-AGONIST SHORT PROTOCOL VERSUS GNRH-ANTAGONIST FOR OVARIAN STIMULATION IN IVF.
    Taylor, J. J.
    [J]. FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2014, 102 (03) : E107 - E107
  • [7] FLEXIBLE GnRH ANTAGONIST PROTOCOL VERSUS GnRH AGONIST LONG PROTOCOL IN PATIENTS AT HIGH RISK OF OVARIAN HYPERSTIMULATION SYNDROME: A PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL.
    Ferrero, S.
    Abbamonte, L. H.
    Privamera, M. R.
    Levi, S.
    Venturini, P. L.
    Anserini, P.
    [J]. FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2010, 94 (04) : S28 - S28
  • [8] GnRH antagonist rescue of a long-protocol IVF cycle and GnRH agonist trigger to avoid ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: three case reports
    Martinez, Francisca
    Beatriz Rodriguez, Dalia
    Buxaderas, Rosario
    Tur, Rosa
    Mancini, Fulvia
    Coroleu, Buenaventura
    [J]. FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2011, 95 (07) : 2432.e17 - 2432.e19
  • [9] Comparison of GnRH Agonist, GnRH Antagonist, and GnRH Antagonist Mild Protocol of Controlled Ovarian Hyperstimulation in Good Prognosis Patients
    Stimpfel, Martin
    Vrtacnik-Bokal, Eda
    Pozlep, Barbara
    Virant-Klun, Irma
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENDOCRINOLOGY, 2015, 2015
  • [10] Conventional GnRH antagonist protocols versus long GnRH agonist protocol in IVF/ICSI cycles of polycystic ovary syndrome women: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Sally Kadoura
    Marwan Alhalabi
    Abdul Hakim Nattouf
    [J]. Scientific Reports, 12