Al-Inany H, Aboulghar M
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001(4):CD001750. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001750.
Over the last two decades, a long protocol of Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) to prevent premature LH surges has been the standard treatment for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction. In the long protocols (with GnRHa started either in the mid luteal phase or in the early follicular phase of the preceding cycle) gonadotrophin administration is delayed until pituitary desensitization has been achieved, which usually takes 2-3 weeks. Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists produce immediate suppression of gonadotrophin secretion, hence, they can be given after starting gonadotrophin administration. This will result in dramatic reduction in the duration of treatment cycle and will avoid estrogen deprivation symptoms associated with GnRH agonist induced down-regulation. Assuming comparable clinical outcome, these benefits would justify a change from the standard long protocol of GnRH agonists to the new GnRH antagonist regimens.
To compare the efficacy of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists with the standard long protocol of GnRH agonists for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in assisted conception.
Search strategies included on-line searching of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's Specialised Register from 1982 to 2001, and hand searching of bibliographies of relevant publications and reviews, and abstracts of scientific meetings.
Only randomised controlled studies comparing different protocols of GnRH antagonists with GnRH agonists in assisted conception cycles were included in this review.
Data were extracted into 2 x 2 tables. For the primary outcomes, clinical pregnancy per woman randomised and prevention of premature LH surge, the overall common odds ratio (OR) and the risk difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated after verifying the presence of homogeneity of treatment effect across all trials. Secondary outcomes considered were the number of oocytes retrieved, clinical pregnancy per oocyte retrieval and per embryo transfer, spontaneous abortion, incidence of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and the amount of gonadotrophins used. Where relevant data were missing or unclear the authors were consulted.
Five trials comparing the new fixed protocol of GnRH antagonist to the long protocol of GnRH agonist fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included. In four studies, the multiple low-dose (0.25 mg) antagonist regimen was applied and in one study, the single high-dose (3 mg) antagonist regimen was investigated. In all trials, reference treatment included a long protocol of GnRHa (buserelin, leuprorelin or triptorelin) starting in the mid-luteal phase of the preceding cycle. In comparison to the long protocol of GnRHa, the overall OR for the prevention of premature LH surges was 1.76 (95% CI 0.75, 4.16), which is not statistically significant. There was a significantly fewer clinical pregnancies in those treated with GnRH antagonists (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62, 0.97). The absolute treatment effect (ATE) was calculated to be 5%. The number needed to treat (NNT) was 20. There was a statistically significant reduction in incidence of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.16, 0.80) using antagonist regimens as compared to the long GnRHa protocol.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The new fixed GnRH antagonist protocol (i.e. with antagonist start fixed on day 6 of gonadotrophin stimulation) is a short and simple protocol with a significant reduction in incidence of severe OHSS but a lower pregnancy rate compared to the GnRH agonist long protocol. There is a non significant difference between both protocols regarding prevention of premature LH surge. The clinical outcome may be further improved by developing more flexible antagonist regimens taking into account individual patient characteristics. The GnRH antagonist flexible regimen should be the area of research in the near future.
在过去二十年中,使用促性腺激素释放激素激动剂(GnRHa)的长方案来预防过早的促黄体生成素(LH)峰,一直是辅助生殖中卵巢刺激的标准治疗方法。在长方案中(GnRHa在前一周期的黄体中期或卵泡早期开始使用),促性腺激素的给药会延迟到垂体脱敏实现后,这通常需要2至3周。促性腺激素释放激素拮抗剂可立即抑制促性腺激素分泌,因此,它们可以在开始使用促性腺激素后给药。这将显著缩短治疗周期的时长,并避免与GnRH激动剂诱导的下调相关的雌激素剥夺症状。假设临床结果相当,这些益处将证明从GnRH激动剂的标准长方案改为新的GnRH拮抗剂方案是合理的。
比较促性腺激素释放激素(GnRH)拮抗剂与GnRH激动剂的标准长方案在辅助受孕中进行控制性卵巢过度刺激的疗效。
检索策略包括对MEDLINE和EMBASE数据库以及Cochrane月经失调与生育力低下小组的专业注册库进行1982年至2001年的在线检索,以及手工检索相关出版物和综述的参考文献以及科学会议的摘要。
本综述仅纳入了在辅助受孕周期中比较不同GnRH拮抗剂方案与GnRH激动剂的随机对照研究。
数据被提取到2×2表格中。对于主要结局,即每个随机分组的妇女的临床妊娠和过早LH峰的预防,在验证所有试验中治疗效果的同质性后,计算总体共同优势比(OR)和95%置信区间(CI)的风险差异。考虑的次要结局包括回收的卵母细胞数量、每次卵母细胞回收和每次胚胎移植的临床妊娠、自然流产、严重卵巢过度刺激综合征的发生率以及使用的促性腺激素量。在相关数据缺失或不明确时,会咨询作者。
五项比较GnRH拮抗剂的新固定方案与GnRH激动剂长方案的试验符合纳入标准并被纳入。在四项研究中,应用了多次低剂量(0.25mg)拮抗剂方案,在一项研究中,研究了单次高剂量(3mg)拮抗剂方案。在所有试验中,对照治疗包括在前一周期的黄体中期开始的GnRHa长方案(布舍瑞林、亮丙瑞林或曲普瑞林)。与GnRHa长方案相比,预防过早LH峰的总体OR为1.76(95%CI 0.75,4.16),无统计学意义。接受GnRH拮抗剂治疗的患者临床妊娠显著减少(OR 0.78,95%CI 0.62,0.97)。计算得出绝对治疗效果(ATE)为5%。治疗所需人数(NNT)为20。与GnRHa长方案相比,使用拮抗剂方案时严重卵巢过度刺激综合征的发生率有统计学显著降低(RR 0.36,95%CI 0.16,0.80)。
新的固定GnRH拮抗剂方案(即拮抗剂在促性腺激素刺激第6天开始固定使用)是一种简短且简单的方案,严重卵巢过度刺激综合征的发生率显著降低,但与GnRH激动剂长方案相比妊娠率较低。在预防过早LH峰方面,两种方案之间无显著差异。通过制定更灵活的拮抗剂方案并考虑个体患者特征,临床结局可能会进一步改善。GnRH拮抗剂灵活方案应是近期的研究领域。