Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted conception.

BACKGROUND 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. OBJECTIVES 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 STRATEGY 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. SELECTION CRITERIA Only randomised controlled studies comparing different protocols of GnRH antagonists with GnRH agonists in assisted conception cycles were included in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 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. MAIN RESULTS 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.

[1]  M. P. Grossman,et al.  Comparison of daily ganirelix administration to a long protocol agonist for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in oocyte donors: The results of a prospective randomized controlled trial , 2003 .

[2]  Z. Rosenwaks,et al.  Efficacy and safety of ganirelix acetate versus leuprolide acetate in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. , 2001, Fertility and sterility.

[3]  P. Devroey,et al.  Significant reduction of the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) by using the LHRH antagonist Cetrorelix (Cetrotide®) in controlled ovarian stimulation for assisted reproduction , 2000, Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

[4]  B. Kovačič,et al.  Comparable effectiveness using flexible single-dose GnRH antagonist (cetrorelix) and single-dose long GnRH agonist (goserelin) protocol for IVF cycles--a prospective, randomized study. , 2003, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[5]  R. Fanchin,et al.  The single or dual administration of the gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist Cetrorelix in an in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer program. , 1994, Fertility and sterility.

[6]  J. Collins,et al.  The routine use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists prior to in vitro fertilization and gamete intrafallopian transfer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. , 1992, Fertility and sterility.

[7]  T. Hillensjö,et al.  Is there a difference in the function of granulosa-luteal cells in patients undergoing in-vitro fertilization either with gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist or gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist? , 1999, Human reproduction.

[8]  K. Diedrich,et al.  Preserved pituitary response under ovarian stimulation with HMG and GnRH antagonists (Cetrorelix) in women with tubal infertility. , 1995, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[9]  P. Devroey,et al.  Hormonal profile during the follicular phase in cycles stimulated with a combination of human menopausal gonadotrophin and gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist (Cetrorelix). , 1996, Human reproduction.

[10]  P. Devroey,et al.  Ovarian stimulation with HMG: results of a prospective randomized phase III European study comparing the luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH)-antagonist cetrorelix and the LHRH-agonist buserelin. European Cetrorelix Study Group. , 2000, Human reproduction.

[11]  B. Fauser,et al.  A randomized comparison of two ovarian stimulation protocols with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist cotreatment for in vitro fertilization commencing recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone on cycle day 2 or 5 with the standard long GnRH agonist protocol. , 2003, The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism.

[12]  R. Fanchin,et al.  The use of a GnRH antagonist (Cetrorelix) in a single dose protocol in IVF-embryo transfer: a dose finding study of 3 versus 2 mg. , 1998, Human reproduction.

[13]  R. Frydman,et al.  Prospective, randomized, controlled study of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer with a single dose of a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LH-RH) antagonist (cetrorelix) or a depot formula of an LH-RH agonist (triptorelin). , 2000, Fertility and sterility.

[14]  R. Fanchin,et al.  Revival of the natural cycles in in-vitro fertilization with the use of a new gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist (Cetrorelix): a pilot study with minimal stimulation. , 1999, Human reproduction.