Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of GnRH antagonist on vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET). Methods We searched CBMdisc (1979 to 2010), Wanfang (1994 to 2010), CNKI (1994 to 2010), VIP (1989 to 2010), PubMed (1997 to 2010), PML (1997 to 2010), FMJS (2000-2010), and 9 related journals to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the comparison between GnRH antagonist (GnRHA) and GnRH agonist (GnRHa). The quality of included trials was critically appraised. RevMan 4.2.7 software was used for statistical analysis. Results Six published RCTs involving 1 208 participants were included. Compared with the GnRHa group, stimulation duration in the GnRHA group was lower (WMD= –1.07, 95%CI –1.38 to –0.76), dose of gonadotrophins (Gns) in the GnRHA group was slightly lower (WMD= –0.49, 95%CI –1.63 to 0.66), endometrial thickness at the time of HCG administration was no significant difference in the two groups (WMD= –0.09, 95%CI –0.42 to 0.24), number of oocytes retrieved in the GnRHA group was lower (WMD= –1.80, 95%CI –2.48 to –1.12), OHSS rate in the GnRHA group was slightly lower (Peto OR= 0.77, 95%CI 0.35 to 1.72), pregnancy rate in the GnRHA group was slightly lower (Peto OR= 0.83, 95%CI 0.65 to 1.05), miscarraige rate as no significant difference in the two groups (Peto OR= 1.49, 95%CI 0.79 to 2.82). Conclusions Compared with GnRHa, GnRHA requires shorter stimulation duration and less Gn, less affected the pregnancy rate, and reduces the incidence of OHSS. The use of GnRHA in clinical practice is relatively flexible with good acceptability. GnRHA for the superovulation IVF-ET offers an alternative treatment. The above conclusion still needs more well-designed, multi-center, and large-scale RCTs to confirm and update.
Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of GnRH antagonist in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) in polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) patients.Methods Such databases as PubMed (1997 to 2010), PML (1997 to 2010), FMJS (2000 to 2010), CBMdisc (1979 to 2010), CNKI (1994 to 2010), VIP (1989 to 2010), WanFang (1994 to 2010), and duxiu scholar searcher (www.duxiu.com), and nine relevant Chinese journals were searched for retrieving the randomized controlled trails (RCTs) on the effectiveness of GnRH antagonist versus GnRH agonist for IVF-ET in PCOS Patients. The studies were screened according to the inclusive and exclusive criteria by two reviewers independently, the data was abstracted and the quality was evaluated. The RevMan 4.2.7 software was used for Meta-analyses. Results Six grade-B studies involving 699 participants were included. The results of Meta-analyses showed that, compared with the GnRH agonist, there was no significant difference in the GnRH antagonist group about the stimulation duration (WMD= –1.23, 95%CI –2.76 to –0.31), dose of gonadotrophins (Gns) (WMD= –4.87, 95%CI –14.20 to 4.46), serum E2 value on the day of HCG administration (WMD= 31.37, 95%CI –263.40 to 326), number of oocytes retrieved (WMD= 1.34, 95%CI –1.02 to 4.70), clinical pregnancy rate (OR= 1.27, 95%CI 0.77 to2.10), and miscarraige rate (Peto OR= 0.67, 95%CI 0.38 to1.18). But the OHSS rate in the GnRH antagonist group was lower with a significant difference (Peto OR= 0.35, 95%CI 0.24 to 0.50). Conclusions Compared with the GnRH agonist protocol, the GnRH antagonist protocol can obviously reduce the incidence of OHSS, but has the same effect in Gn dose, retrieving oocytes and clinical pregnancy rate. Because the GnRH antagonist can decrease the treatment duration and cost, and has better safety, so it may be an ideal choice for PCOS patients to have IVF-ET therapy. For the quality and quantity limitation, and the methodology difference of the included studies, it is suggested that the conclusion from this study should be only served as a reference of clinical analyses, and should be revaluated and updated unceasingly.
Objective To assess the effectiveness of letrozole in ovulation induction treatment. Methods We searched CBMdisc (1979 to 2009), Wanfang (1994 to 2009), CNKI (1994 to 2009), VIP(1989 to 2009), PubMed (1997 to 2009), PML (1997 to 2009), FMJS(2000 to 2009) and 9 relevant journals to identify randomized controlled trails (RCTs) comparing letrozole with clomiphene citrate in ovulation induction treatment. The quality of the included trials was critically appraised. RevMan 4.2.7 software was used for statistical analyses. Results Ten RCTs involving 3100 patients were included, among which 5 RCTs were graded A, 4 were graded B, and 1 was graded C. Five RCTs showed that endometrial thickness at the time of human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) administration in the letrozole group was significantly higher than that in the clomiphene group. One RCT showed that endometrial thickness at the time of HCG administration in the letrozole group was significantly lower than that in the clomiphene group. Three RCTs showed no significant differences between the two groups. Four RCTs showed that the number of dominant follicle at the time of HCG administration in the letrozole group was signficantly lower than that in the clomiphene group. One RCT showed that the number of dominant follicle at the time of HCG administration in the letrozole group was significantly higher than that in the clomiphene group. Two RCTs showed no significant differences between the two groups. Compared with clomiphene citrate, the pregnancy rate in the letrozole monotherapy group was slightly lower at the RR 1.03 and 95%CI 0.82 to 1.29, pregnancy rate in the combination group was higher at RR 1.73 and 95%CI 1.37 to 2.18. The ovulation rate in the letrozole group was higher and no significant differences were found between the two groups at RR 1.23 and 95%CI 0.97 to 1.57. Conclusions There may be differences between letrozole and clomiphene citrate in ovulation induction treatment in terms of endometrial thickness, number of dominant follicle, ovulation rate, and pregnancy rate, but no significant differences. Letrozole can make up for the shortcomings of clinical clomiphene in ovulation induction and serve as an alternative. This conclusion needs to be further confirmed through more well-designed, multi-centered, large-sample RCTs.