Literature DB >> 27060174

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

M Toftager1, J Bogstad2, T Bryndorf2, K Løssl2, J Roskær3, T Holland2, L Prætorius2, A Zedeler2, L Nilas4, A Pinborg2.   

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION: 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?. SUMMARY ANSWER: 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. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: 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. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
FINDINGS: 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. 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.
© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  GnRH agonist; GnRH antagonist; IVF; infertility; live birth rate; on-going pregnancy rate; ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome; pregnancy rate

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27060174     DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dew051

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Reprod        ISSN: 0268-1161            Impact factor:   6.918


  30 in total

Review 1.  Novel Concepts for Inducing Final Oocyte Maturation in In Vitro Fertilization Treatment.

Authors:  Ali Abbara; Sophie A Clarke; Waljit S Dhillo
Journal:  Endocr Rev       Date:  2018-10-01       Impact factor: 19.871

Review 2.  Ovarian manipulation in ART: going beyond physiological standards to provide best clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Israel Ortega; Juan A García-Velasco; Antonio Pellicer
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2018-07-28       Impact factor: 3.412

3.  Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome after assisted reproductive technologies: trends, predictors, and pregnancy outcomes.

Authors:  David A Schirmer; Aniket D Kulkarni; Yujia Zhang; Jennifer F Kawwass; Sheree L Boulet; Dmitry M Kissin
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2020-07-14       Impact factor: 7.329

4.  Rare genetic variants suggest dysregulation of signaling pathways in low- and high-risk patients developing severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.

Authors:  L Borgwardt; K W Olsen; M Rossing; R Borup Helweg-Larsen; M Toftager; A Pinborg; J Bogstad; K Løssl; A Zedeler; M L Grøndahl
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2020-09-18       Impact factor: 3.412

5.  GnRH Antagonist Protocol Versus GnRH Agonist Long Protocol: A Retrospective Cohort Study on Clinical Outcomes and Maternal-Neonatal Safety.

Authors:  Jieru Zhu; Weijie Xing; Tao Li; Hui Lin; Jianping Ou
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-06-29       Impact factor: 6.055

6.  Oocyte competence is independent of the ovulation trigger adopted: a large observational study in a setting that entails vitrified-warmed single euploid blastocyst transfer.

Authors:  Danilo Cimadomo; Alberto Vaiarelli; Cecilia Petriglia; Gemma Fabozzi; Susanna Ferrero; Mauro Schimberni; Cindy Argento; Silvia Colamaria; Maddalena Giuliani; Nicolò Ubaldi; Laura Rienzi; Filippo Maria Ubaldi
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2021-03-04       Impact factor: 3.357

7.  Transient receptor potential melastatin 2 ion channel activity in ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome physiopathology

Authors:  Cengiz Şanlı; Remzi Atılgan; Tuncay Kuloğlu; Şehmus Pala; Bilge Aydın Türk; Hasan Burak Keser; Nevin İlhan
Journal:  Turk J Med Sci       Date:  2021-04-30       Impact factor: 0.973

8.  How to personalize ovarian stimulation in clinical practice.

Authors:  Giovanna Sighinolfi; Valentina Grisendi; Antonio La Marca
Journal:  J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc       Date:  2017-09-01

9.  Comparisons of GnRH antagonist protocol versus GnRH agonist long protocol in patients with normal ovarian reserve: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ruolin Wang; Shouren Lin; Yong Wang; Weiping Qian; Liang Zhou
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-04-24       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  A second dose of kisspeptin-54 improves oocyte maturation in women at high risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: a Phase 2 randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Ali Abbara; Sophie Clarke; Rumana Islam; Julia K Prague; Alexander N Comninos; Shakunthala Narayanaswamy; Deborah Papadopoulou; Rachel Roberts; Chioma Izzi-Engbeaya; Risheka Ratnasabapathy; Alexander Nesbitt; Sunitha Vimalesvaran; Rehan Salim; Stuart A Lavery; Stephen R Bloom; Les Huson; Geoffrey H Trew; Waljit S Dhillo
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 6.918

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.