Toftager M, Bogstad J, Bryndorf T, Løssl K, Roskær J, Holland T, Prætorius L, Zedeler A, Nilas L, Pinborg A
Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Fertility Clinic Section 455, Hvidovre University Hospital, Kettegård Alle 30, Hvidovre, Copenhagen 2650, Denmark
Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Fertility Clinic Section 455, Hvidovre University Hospital, Kettegård Alle 30, Hvidovre, Copenhagen 2650, Denmark.
Hum Reprod. 2016 Jun;31(6):1253-64. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dew051. Epub 2016 Apr 8.
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. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY?: 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).
STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: 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.
PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: 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-β (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 ≤36 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 (Δpp) = -3.8pp; 95% CI: -7.1 to -0.4; P = 0.02)] and moderate OHSS [10.2% (54/528) versus 15.6% (77/495) (Δpp = -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) (Δpp = -1.0pp; 95% CI: -6.3 to 4.3; P = 0.70) and OPRs were 24.9% (133/528) versus 26.2% (135/516) (Δpp = -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.
LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: 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.
STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: 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.
EudraCT #: 2008-005452-24. ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT00756028. Trial registration date: 18 September 2008. Date of first patient's enrolment: 14 January 2009.
在年龄小于40岁的首次接受体外受精/卵胞浆内单精子注射(IVF/ICSI)的患者中,短期促性腺激素释放激素(GnRH)拮抗剂方案与长期GnRH激动剂方案发生严重卵巢过度刺激综合征(OHSS)的风险是否相似?
与短期GnRH拮抗剂方案相比,长期GnRH激动剂组发生严重OHSS的风险增加。
在最近的Cochrane综述中,与传统的GnRH激动剂方案相比,GnRH拮抗剂方案的活产率(LBR)相似、持续妊娠率(OPR)相似,且OHSS的发生率较低(优势比(OR)=0.43,95%置信区间(CI):0.33 - 0.57)。以往比较这两种方案的试验主要纳入了特定的患者群体,患者数量有限,且所应用的OHSS标准不同,难以进行直接比较。在最近的两项大型荟萃分析中,未报告LBR(OR = 0.86;95% CI:0.72 - 1.02)或严重OHSS发生率的显著差异,而其他研究发现使用GnRH拮抗剂方案时LBR较低(OR = 0.82;95% CI:0.68 - 0.97)且严重OHSS风险降低(OR = 0.60;95% CI:0.40 - 0.88)。
研究设计、规模、持续时间:IV期、双中心、开放标签的随机对照试验(RCT),包括1050名女性,以1:1的比例分配至短期GnRH拮抗剂或长期GnRH激动剂方案,在5年期间使用基于网络的隐蔽随机化代码进行招募。这是一项优效性研究,旨在检测两组之间严重OHSS(主要结局)的差异,检验效能为80%,并按年龄、辅助生殖技术(ART)诊所和计划的受精程序(IVF/ICSI)进行分层。次要目标是比较两组之间轻度和中度OHSS、血β - 人绒毛膜促性腺激素(p - hCG)阳性、持续妊娠和活产的发生率。所有女性均未接受过先前的ART治疗。
参与者/材料、设置、方法:所有在两家公立生育诊所首次接受IVF/ICSI治疗、年龄小于40岁且无子宫畸形的不孕女性被邀请参与。共有1099名受试者被随机分组(包括卵巢储备功能不良、多囊卵巢综合征和月经周期不规律的女性)。共有49名女性撤回同意,因此1050名受试者分别被分配至GnRH拮抗剂组(n = 534)和激动剂组(n = 回516)。共有1023名女性开始接受重组人促卵泡素 - β(rFSH)刺激,GnRH拮抗剂组528名,GnRH激动剂组495名。根据年龄≤回36岁或>36岁,所有受试者均给予固定剂量的rFSH,分别为150 IU或225 IU,并可在刺激第6天调整剂量。在取卵时以及移植后第3天和第14天收集临床OHSS参数。在妊娠第7 - 9周通过经阴道超声检查确定持续妊娠情况。在生殖结局的意向性分析(ITT)中,纳入1050名受试者。在OHSS的ITT分析中,纳入1023名开始促性腺激素刺激的受试者。
GnRH拮抗剂组严重OHSS的发生率[5.1%(27/528)vs 8.9%(44/495)(比例差值(Δpp)=-3.8pp;95% CI:-7.1至-0.4;P = 0.02)]和中度OHSS的发生率[10.2%(54/528)vs 15.6%(77/495)(Δpp = -5.3pp;95% CI:-9.6至-1.0;P = 0.01)]均显著低于激动剂组。在GnRH拮抗剂组和激动剂组中,因OHSS看医生的女性分别为4.7%(25/528)和8.5%(42/495)(P = 0.01),因OHSS住院的分别为1.7%(回9/528)和3.6%(18/495)(P = 0.06)。GnRH拮抗剂组无女性进行腹水穿刺,而GnRH激动剂组为2.0%(10/495)(P < 0.01)。GnRH拮抗剂组和激动剂组每随机分组受试者的LBR分别为22.8%(122/534)和23.8%(123/516)(Δpp = -1.0pp;95% CI:-6.3至4.3;P = 0.70),OPR分别为24.9%(133/528)和26.2%(135/516)(Δpp = -1.3pp;95% CI:-6.7至4.2;P = 0.64),两组平均移植胚胎数分别为1.1和1.2。两组中每随机分组受试者、每开始促性腺激素刺激以及每移植胚胎的妊娠率(PR)均相似。
局限性、注意事项:一个可能的局限性是试验持续时间,在试验期间开发了新的方法,如“全胚冷冻”和“GnRH激动剂触发”,尽量避免使用新方法,但仍有32名女性进行了“全胚冷冻”,3例进行了“GnRH激动剂触发”。超声测量由不同医生进行,可能存在观察者间偏倚。未进行抗苗勒管激素和窦卵泡计数的测量以评估卵巢储备并预测OHSS风险。最后,随机分组后医生未对GnRH治疗组设盲。
对于年龄小于40岁首次接受ART周期治疗(包括低反应者和高反应者)的女性,当使用根据年龄固定的初始促性腺激素剂量时,短期GnRH拮抗剂方案应作为首选方案,因为长期GnRH激动剂组严重OHSS及相关并发症的风险增加,且两组的PR和LBR相似。OHSS风险较高的患者尤其受益于短期GnRH拮抗剂治疗,因为可以使用GnRH激动剂触发。
研究资金/利益冲突:由美国新泽西州肯尼沃思默克公司的子公司默克雪兰诺公司提供无限制研究资助。资助者对研究的数据收集、分析或结论没有影响。无利益冲突声明。
欧盟临床试验注册号:2008 - 005452 - 24。美国国立医学图书馆临床试验注册中心注册号:NCT00756028。试验注册日期:2008年回9月18日。首例患者入组日期:2009年1月14日。