W P Martins1, R A Ferriani1, P A Navarro1, C O Nastri1. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ribeirao Preto Medical School, University of Sao Paulo (DGO-FMRP-USP), Ribeirao Preto, Brazil.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify, evaluate and summarize the available evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of administering a gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist during the luteal phase in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the addition of a GnRH agonist during the luteal phase, compared with standard luteal-phase support. We searched seven electronic databases and hand-searched the reference lists of included studies and related reviews. Our primary outcome was live birth or ongoing pregnancy per randomized woman. Our secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy per randomized woman, miscarriage per clinical pregnancy, adverse perinatal outcome and congenital malformations. RESULTS: The evidence from eight studies examining 2776 women showed a relative risk (RR) for live birth or ongoing pregnancy of 1.26 (95% CI, 1.04-1.53; I(2) = 58%). Sensitivity analysis when excluding the studies that did not report live birth and those at high risk of bias resulted in one study examining 181 women with an RR of 1.07 (95% CI, 0.73-1.58). Subgroup analysis separating the studies by single/multiple doses of GnRH agonists or by ovarian stimulation with GnRH agonist/antagonist was unable to explain the observed heterogeneity. The quality of the evidence was deemed to be very low: it was downgraded because of the limitation of the included studies, imprecision, inconsistency across the studies' results, and suspicion of publication bias. None of the included studies reported adverse perinatal outcomes or congenital malformations. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that adding GnRH agonist during the luteal phase improves the likelihood of ongoing pregnancy. However, this evidence is of very low quality and there is no evidence for adverse perinatal outcome and congenital malformations. We therefore believe that including this intervention in clinical practice would be premature.
OBJECTIVE: To identify, evaluate and summarize the available evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of administering a gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist during the luteal phase in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the addition of a GnRH agonist during the luteal phase, compared with standard luteal-phase support. We searched seven electronic databases and hand-searched the reference lists of included studies and related reviews. Our primary outcome was live birth or ongoing pregnancy per randomized woman. Our secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy per randomized woman, miscarriage per clinical pregnancy, adverse perinatal outcome and congenital malformations. RESULTS: The evidence from eight studies examining 2776 women showed a relative risk (RR) for live birth or ongoing pregnancy of 1.26 (95% CI, 1.04-1.53; I(2) = 58%). Sensitivity analysis when excluding the studies that did not report live birth and those at high risk of bias resulted in one study examining 181 women with an RR of 1.07 (95% CI, 0.73-1.58). Subgroup analysis separating the studies by single/multiple doses of GnRH agonists or by ovarian stimulation with GnRH agonist/antagonist was unable to explain the observed heterogeneity. The quality of the evidence was deemed to be very low: it was downgraded because of the limitation of the included studies, imprecision, inconsistency across the studies' results, and suspicion of publication bias. None of the included studies reported adverse perinatal outcomes or congenital malformations. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that adding GnRH agonist during the luteal phase improves the likelihood of ongoing pregnancy. However, this evidence is of very low quality and there is no evidence for adverse perinatal outcome and congenital malformations. We therefore believe that including this intervention in clinical practice would be premature.
Authors: Le Thi Minh Chau; Duong Khue Tu; Philippe Lehert; Do Van Dung; Le Quang Thanh; Vo Minh Tuan Journal: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol X Date: 2019-05-13