-
Pharmacological Research Sep 2021Obesity is frequently a comorbidity of type 2 diabetes. Even modest weight loss can significantly improve glucose homeostasis and lessen cardiometabolic risk factors in...
INTRODUCTION
Obesity is frequently a comorbidity of type 2 diabetes. Even modest weight loss can significantly improve glucose homeostasis and lessen cardiometabolic risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes, but lifestyle-based weight loss strategies are not long-term effective. There is an increasing need to consider pharmacological approaches to assist weight loss in the so called diabesity syndrome. Aim of this review is to analyze the weight-loss effect of non-insulin glucose lowering drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic analysis of the literature on the effect of non-insulin glucose lowering drugs on weight loss in patients with type 2 diabetes was performed. For each class of drugs, the following parameters were analyzed: kilograms lost on average, effect on body mass index and body composition.
RESULTS
Our results suggested that anti-diabetic drugs can be stratified into 3 groups based on their efficacy in weight loss: metformin, acarbose, empagliflozin and exenatide resulted in a in a mild weight loss (less than 3.2% of initial weight); canagliflozin, ertugliflozin, dapagliflozin and dulaglutide induces a moderate weight loss (between 3.2% and 5%); liraglutide, semaglutide and tirzepatide resulted in a strong weight loss (greater than 5%).
CONCLUSIONS
This study shows that new anti-diabetic drugs, particularly GLP1-RA and Tirzepatide, are the most effective in inducing weight loss in patients with type 2 diabetes. Interestingly, exenatide appears to be the only GLP1-RA that induces a mild weight loss.
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Gastric Inhibitory Polypeptide; Glucagon-Like Peptide 1; Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Obesity; Weight Loss
PubMed: 34302978
DOI: 10.1016/j.phrs.2021.105782 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Jun 2016Clinicians and patients need updated evidence on the comparative effectiveness and safety of diabetes medications to make informed treatment choices. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Clinicians and patients need updated evidence on the comparative effectiveness and safety of diabetes medications to make informed treatment choices.
PURPOSE
To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of monotherapy (thiazolidinediones, metformin, sulfonylureas, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 [DPP-4] inhibitors, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 [SGLT-2] inhibitors, and glucagon-like peptide-1 [GLP-1] receptor agonists) and selected metformin-based combinations in adults with type 2 diabetes.
DATA SOURCES
English-language studies from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, indexed from inception through March 2015 (MEDLINE search updated through December 2015).
STUDY SELECTION
Paired reviewers independently identified 179 trials and 25 observational studies of head-to-head monotherapy or metformin-based combinations.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two reviewers independently assessed study quality and serially extracted data and graded the strength of evidence.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Cardiovascular mortality was lower for metformin versus sulfonylureas; the evidence on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, and microvascular complications was insufficient or of low strength. Reductions in hemoglobin A1c values were similar across monotherapies and metformin-based combinations, except that DPP-4 inhibitors had smaller effects. Body weight was reduced or maintained with metformin, DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and SGLT-2 inhibitors and increased with sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones, and insulin (between-group differences up to 5 kg). Hypoglycemia was more frequent with sulfonylureas. Gastrointestinal adverse events were highest with metformin and GLP-1 receptor agonists. Genital mycotic infections were increased with SGLT-2 inhibitors.
LIMITATION
Most studies were short, with limited ability to assess rare safety and long-term clinical outcomes.
CONCLUSION
The evidence supports metformin as first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes, given its relative safety and beneficial effects on hemoglobin A1c, weight, and cardiovascular mortality (compared with sulfonylureas). On the basis of less evidence, results for add-on therapies to metformin were similar to those for monotherapies.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Topics: Adult; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cause of Death; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Drug Therapy, Combination; Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Metformin
PubMed: 27088241
DOI: 10.7326/M15-2650 -
BMJ Open Mar 2023To compare the efficacy and safety between and within glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of GLP-1 receptor agonists versus SGLT-2 inhibitors in overweight/obese patients with or without diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy and safety between and within glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) in overweight or obese adults with or without diabetes mellitus.
METHODS
PubMed, ISI Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database were comprehensively searched to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of effects of GLP-1RAs and SGLT-2is in overweight or obese participants from inception to 16 January 2022. The efficacy outcomes were the changes of body weight, glucose level and blood pressure. The safety outcomes were serious adverse events and discontinuation due to adverse events. The mean differences, ORs, 95% credible intervals (95% CI), the surface under the cumulative ranking were evaluated for each outcome by network meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Sixty-one RCTs were included in our analysis. Both GLP-1RAs and SGLT-2is conferred greater extents in body weight reduction, achieving at least 5% wt loss, HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose decrease compared with placebo. GLP-1RAs was superior to SGLT-2is in HbA1c reduction (MD: -0.39%, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.08). GLP-1RAs had high risk of adverse events, while SGLT-2is were relatively safe. Based on intraclass comparison, semaglutide 2.4 mg was among the most effective interventions in losing body weight (MD: -11.51 kg, 95% CI -12.83 to -10.21), decreasing HbA1c (MD: -1.49%, 95% CI -2.07 to -0.92) and fasting plasma glucose (MD: -2.15 mmol/L, 95% CI -2.83 to -1.59), reducing systolic blood pressure (MD: -4.89 mm Hg, 95% CI -6.04 to -3.71) and diastolic blood pressure (MD: -1.59 mm Hg, 95% CI -2.37 to -0.86) with moderate certainty evidences, while it was associated with high risk of adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
Semaglutide 2.4 mg showed the greatest effects on losing body weight, controlling glycaemic level and reducing blood pressure while it was associated with high risk of adverse events.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021258103.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Blood Glucose; Body Weight; Diabetes Mellitus; Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor; Glycated Hemoglobin; Network Meta-Analysis; Obesity; Overweight; Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors; Weight Loss
PubMed: 36882248
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061807 -
The European Respiratory Journal Feb 2015The benefits of drug therapy for asthma have been well established, but adherence to treatment is poor, and this might be associated with an increased risk of asthma... (Review)
Review
The benefits of drug therapy for asthma have been well established, but adherence to treatment is poor, and this might be associated with an increased risk of asthma exacerbations. The aim of this study was to review the literature on the association between adherence to asthma controller treatment and risk of severe asthma exacerbations in children and adults. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science, from inception until January 2014. Studies were included if data on the association between medication adherence and severe asthma exacerbations were presented. Quality was assessed using a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The search yielded 2319 unique publications, of which 23 met the inclusion criteria and underwent data extraction and quality scoring. High levels of heterogeneity across studies with regard to adherence and exacerbation measurements, designs and analysis precluded a formal meta-analysis. Although effect measures varied widely, good adherence was associated with fewer severe asthma exacerbations in high-quality studies. Good adherence tended to be associated with lower risk of severe asthma exacerbations. Future studies should use standardised methodology to assess adherence and exacerbations, and should consider inhaler competence.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Adult; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Asthma; Child; Female; Humans; Male; Medication Adherence; Nebulizers and Vaporizers; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25323234
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00075614 -
Life (Basel, Switzerland) Apr 2023Pramipexole is a dopamine full agonist approved for the treatment of Parkinson's disease and restless legs syndrome. Its high affinity for the D3 receptor and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pramipexole is a dopamine full agonist approved for the treatment of Parkinson's disease and restless legs syndrome. Its high affinity for the D3 receptor and neuroprotective, antioxidant, and anti-inflammatory activity provides a rationale for the treatment of depression. In this paper, we review studies on the effectiveness and safety of antidepressant pramipexole augmentation in treatment-resistant depression.
METHODS
This comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies on pramipexole-antidepressant augmentation included patients with resistant unipolar and bipolar depression. The primary outcome measure was the treatment response, measured at the study endpoint.
RESULTS
We identified 8 studies including 281 patients overall, 57% women and 39.5% with bipolar disorder and 60.5% with major depressive disorder. The mean follow-up duration was 27.3 weeks (range 8-69). The pooled estimate of treatment response was 62.5%, without significant differences between unipolar and bipolar depression. Safety was good, with nausea and somnolence the most frequent side effects.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this systematic review, needing further confirmation, show that off-label use of pramipexole as augmentation of antidepressant treatment could be a useful and safe strategy for unipolar and bipolar treatment-resistant depression.
PubMed: 37109571
DOI: 10.3390/life13041043 -
Hormone and Metabolic Research =... Jul 2022Aim To determine the antiobesity effect and safety of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) including liraglutide, exenatide and semaglutide treatment in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Aim To determine the antiobesity effect and safety of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) including liraglutide, exenatide and semaglutide treatment in overweight/obese patients without diabetes. The random-effect model was used to pool data extracted from included literatures. The weighted mean difference (WMD), odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to present the meta-analysis results (PROSPERO registration number: CRD 42020173199). The sources of intertrial heterogeneity, bias and the robustness of results were evaluated by subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis and regression analysis, respectively. A total of 24 RCTs were recruited in the present analysis which included 5867 patients. The results showed that the treatment of overweight/obese patients without diabetes with GLP-1RAs including liraglutide, exenatide and semaglutide significantly achieved greater weight loss than placebo [WMD=-5.39, 95% CI (-6.82, -3.96)] and metformin [WMD=-5.46, 95% CI (-5.87, -5.05)]. The subgroup analysis showed that semaglutide displayed the most obvious antiobesity effect in terms of weight loss, the reduction of body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference (WC). However, GLP-1RAs treatments had more gastrointestinal adverse events (such as nausea and vomiting) than placebo and Met. The subgroup analysis also represented that semaglutide displayed the lowest risk of gastrointestinal adverse events among three kinds of GLP-1RAs. Our meta-analysis demonstrated that GLP-1RA had a superior antiobesity effect than placebo/Met in overweight/obese patients without diabetes in terms of body weight, BMI, and WC, especially for semaglutide, which had more obvious antiobesity effect and lower GI adverse events than liraglutide and exenatide.
Topics: Anti-Obesity Agents; Exenatide; Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor; Glucagon-Like Peptides; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Liraglutide; Obesity; Weight Loss
PubMed: 35512849
DOI: 10.1055/a-1844-1176 -
Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. Revue... Feb 2015Children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) may have oppositional behaviour, conduct problems, and aggression. These symptoms vary in severity, and may... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The pharmacological management of oppositional behaviour, conduct problems, and aggression in children and adolescents with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and conduct disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Part 1: psychostimulants, alpha-2...
OBJECTIVE
Children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) may have oppositional behaviour, conduct problems, and aggression. These symptoms vary in severity, and may be related to a comorbid diagnosis of oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) or conduct disorder (CD). Critical evaluation of the efficacy of ADHD medications may guide the clinician regarding the usefulness of medications for these symptoms.
METHOD
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of psychostimulants, alpha-2 agonists, and atomoxetine for oppositional behaviour, conduct problems, and aggression in youth with ADHD, ODD, and CD. The quality of evidence for medications was rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS
Two systematic reviews and 20 randomized controlled trials were included. There is high-quality evidence that psychostimulants have a moderate-to-large effect on oppositional behaviour, conduct problems, and aggression in youth with ADHD, with and without ODD or CD. There is very-low-quality evidence that clonidine has a small effect on oppositional behaviour and conduct problems in youth with ADHD, with and without ODD or CD. There is moderate-quality evidence that guanfacine has a small-to-moderate effect on oppositional behaviour in youth with ADHD, with and without ODD. There is high-quality evidence that atomoxetine has a small effect on oppositional behaviour in youth with ADHD, with and without ODD or CD.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence indicates that psychostimulants, alpha-2 agonists, and atomoxetine can be beneficial for disruptive and aggressive behaviours in addition to core ADHD symptoms; however, psychostimulants generally provide the most benefit.
Topics: Adolescent; Adrenergic Uptake Inhibitors; Adrenergic alpha-2 Receptor Agonists; Aggression; Atomoxetine Hydrochloride; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Attention Deficit and Disruptive Behavior Disorders; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Child; Conduct Disorder; Humans
PubMed: 25886655
DOI: 10.1177/070674371506000202 -
European Urology Jul 2019Many trials are evaluating therapies for men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Many trials are evaluating therapies for men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC).
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review trials of prostate radiotherapy.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
Using a prospective framework (framework for adaptive meta-analysis [FAME]), we prespecified methods before any trial results were known. We searched extensively for eligible trials and asked investigators when results would be available. We could then anticipate that a definitive meta-analysis of the effects of prostate radiotherapy was possible. We obtained prepublication, unpublished, and harmonised results from investigators.
INTERVENTION
We included trials that randomised men to prostate radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or ADT only.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Hazard ratios (HRs) for the effects of prostate radiotherapy on survival, progression-free survival (PFS), failure-free survival (FFS), biochemical progression, and subgroup interactions were combined using fixed-effect meta-analysis.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS
We identified one ongoing (PEACE-1) and two completed (HORRAD and STAMPEDE) eligible trials. Pooled results of the latter (2126 men; 90% of those eligible) showed no overall improvement in survival (HR=0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-1.04, p=0.195) or PFS (HR=0.94, 95% CI 0.84-1.05, p=0.238) with prostate radiotherapy. There was an overall improvement in biochemical progression (HR=0.74, 95% CI 0.67-0.82, p=0.94×10) and FFS (HR=0.76, 95% CI 0.69-0.84, p=0.64×10), equivalent to ∼10% benefit at 3yr. The effect of prostate radiotherapy varied by metastatic burden-a pattern consistent across trials and outcome measures, including survival (<5, ≥5; interaction HR=1.47, 95% CI 1.11-1.94, p=0.007). There was 7% improvement in 3-yr survival in men with fewer than five bone metastases.
CONCLUSIONS
Prostate radiotherapy should be considered for men with mHSPC with a low metastatic burden.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Prostate cancer that has spread to other parts of the body (metastases) is usually treated with hormone therapy. In men with fewer than five bone metastases, addition of prostate radiotherapy helped them live longer and should be considered.
Topics: Bone Neoplasms; Disease-Free Survival; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Humans; Male; Orchiectomy; Progression-Free Survival; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Survival Rate; Tumor Burden
PubMed: 30826218
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.003 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2015Progesterone prepares the endometrium for pregnancy by stimulating proliferation in response to human chorionic gonadotropin(hCG) produced by the corpus luteum. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Progesterone prepares the endometrium for pregnancy by stimulating proliferation in response to human chorionic gonadotropin(hCG) produced by the corpus luteum. This occurs in the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. In assisted reproduction techniques(ART), progesterone and/or hCG levels are low, so the luteal phase is supported with progesterone, hCG or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists to improve implantation and pregnancy rates.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the relative effectiveness and safety of methods of luteal phase support provided to subfertile women undergoing assisted reproduction.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched databases including the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and trial registers. We conducted searches in November 2014, and further searches on 4 August 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of luteal phase support using progesterone, hCG or GnRH agonist supplementation in ART cycles.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95%confidence intervals (CIs) for each comparison and combined data when appropriate using a fixed-effect model. Our primary out come was live birth or ongoing pregnancy. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods.
MAIN RESULTS
Ninety-four women RCTs (26,198 women) were included. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias in most domains. The main limitations in the evidence were poor reporting of study methods and imprecision due to small sample sizes.1. hCG vs placebo/no treatment (five RCTs, 746 women)There was no evidence of differences between groups in live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.12, three RCTs,527 women, I2 = 24%, very low-quality evidence, but I2 of 61% was found for the subgroup of ongoing pregnancy) with a random effects model. hCG increased the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (1 RCT, OR 4.28, 95% CI 1.91 to 9.6, low quality evidence).2. Progesterone vs placebo/no treatment (eight RCTs, 875 women)Evidence suggests a higher rate of live birth or ongoing pregnancy in the progesterone group (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.86, five RCTs, 642 women, I2 = 35%, very low-quality evidence). OHSS was not reported.3. Progesterone vs hCG regimens (16 RCTs, 2162 women)hCG regimens included comparisons of progesterone versus hCG and progesterone versus progesterone + hCG. No evidence showed differences between groups in live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.38, five RCTs, 833 women, I2 = 0%, low quality evidence) or in the risk of OHSS (four RCTs, 615 women, progesterone vs hCG OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.34; four RCTs,678 women; progesterone vs progesterone plus hCG, OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.26, low-quality evidence).4. Progesterone vs progesterone with oestrogen (16 RCTs, 2577 women)No evidence was found of differences between groups in live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.38, nine RCTs,1651 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence) or OHSS (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.63, two RCTs, 461 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence).5. Progesterone vs progesterone + GnRH agonist (seven RCTs, 1708 women)Live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates were lower in the progesterone-only group and increased in women who received progester one and one or more GnRH agonist doses (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.81, nine RCTs, 2861 women, I2 = 55%, random effects, low quality evidence). Statistical heterogeneity for this comparison was high because of unexplained variation in the effect size, but the direction of effect was consistent across studies. OHSS was reported in one study only (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 3.01, 1 RCT, 300 women, very low quality evidence).6. Progesterone regimens (45 RCTs, 13,814 women)The included studies reported nine different comparisons between progesterone regimens. Findings for live birth or ongoing pregnancy were as follows: intramuscular (IM) versus oral: OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.66 (one RCT, 40 women, very low-quality evidence);IM versus vaginal/rectal: OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.5 (seven RCTs, 2309 women, I2 = 71%, very low-quality evidence); vaginal/rectal versus oral: OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.69 (four RCTs, 857 women, I2 = 32%, low-quality evidence); low-dose versus high-dose vaginal: OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11 (five RCTs, 3720 women, I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence); short versus long protocol:OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.36 (five RCTs, 1205 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence); micronised versus synthetic: OR 0.9, 95%CI 0.53 to 1.55 (two RCTs, 470 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence); vaginal ring versus gel: OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.36 (oneRCT, 1271 women, low-quality evidence); subcutaneous versus vaginal gel: OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14 (two RCTs, 1465 women,I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence); and vaginal versus rectal: OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.54 (one RCT, 147 women, very low-quality evidence). OHSS rates were reported for only two of these comparisons: IM versus oral, and low versus high-dose vaginal. No evidence showed a difference between groups.7. Progesterone and oestrogen regimens (two RCTs, 1195 women)The included studies compared two different oestrogen protocols. No evidence was found to suggest differences in live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates between a short and a long protocol (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.43, one RCT, 910 women, low-quality evidence) or between a low dose and a high dose of oestrogen (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.13, one RCT, 285 women, very low-quality evidence).Neither study reported OHSS.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Both progesterone and hCG during the luteal phase are associated with higher rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy than placebo.The addition of GnRHa to progesterone is associated with an improvement in pregnancy outcomes. OHSS rates are increased with hCG compared to placebo (only study only). The addition of oestrogen does not seem to improve outcomes. The route of progester one administration is not associated with an improvement in outcomes.
Topics: Chorionic Gonadotropin; Drug Therapy, Combination; Estrogens; Female; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Humans; Live Birth; Luteal Phase; Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Maintenance; Progesterone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reproductive Techniques, Assisted
PubMed: 26148507
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009154.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017Among subfertile couples undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART), pregnancy rates following frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) treatment cycles have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Among subfertile couples undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART), pregnancy rates following frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) treatment cycles have historically been found to be lower than following embryo transfer undertaken two to five days following oocyte retrieval. Nevertheless, FET increases the cumulative pregnancy rate, reduces cost, is relatively simple to undertake and can be accomplished in a shorter time period than repeated in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles with fresh embryo transfer. FET is performed using different cycle regimens: spontaneous ovulatory (natural) cycles; cycles in which the endometrium is artificially prepared by oestrogen and progesterone hormones, commonly known as hormone therapy (HT) FET cycles; and cycles in which ovulation is induced by drugs (ovulation induction FET cycles). HT can be used with or without a gonadotrophin releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa). This is an update of a Cochrane review; the first version was published in 2008.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effectiveness and safety of natural cycle FET, HT cycle FET and ovulation induction cycle FET, and compare subtypes of these regimens.
SEARCH METHODS
On 13 December 2016 we searched databases including Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL. Other search sources were trials registers and reference lists of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the various cycle regimens and different methods used to prepare the endometrium during FET.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were live birth rates and miscarriage.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 18 RCTs comparing different cycle regimens for FET in 3815 women. The quality of the evidence was low or very low. The main limitations were failure to report important clinical outcomes, poor reporting of study methods and imprecision due to low event rates. We found no data specific to non-ovulatory women. 1. Natural cycle FET comparisons Natural cycle FET versus HT FETNo study reported live birth rates, miscarriage or ongoing pregnancy.There was no evidence of a difference in multiple pregnancy rates between women in natural cycles and those in HT FET cycle (odds ratio (OR) 2.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 68.14, 1 RCT, n = 21, very low-quality evidence). Natural cycle FET versus HT plus GnRHa suppressionThere was no evidence of a difference in rates of live birth (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.53, 1 RCT, n = 159, low-quality evidence) or multiple pregnancy (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.50, 1 RCT, n = 159, low-quality evidence) between women who had natural cycle FET and those who had HT FET cycles with GnRHa suppression. No study reported miscarriage or ongoing pregnancy. Natural cycle FET versus modified natural cycle FET (human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) trigger)There was no evidence of a difference in rates of live birth (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.93, 1 RCT, n = 60, very low-quality evidence) or miscarriage (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.13, 1 RCT, n = 168, very low-quality evidence) between women in natural cycles and women in natural cycles with HCG trigger. However, very low-quality evidence suggested that women in natural cycles (without HCG trigger) may have higher ongoing pregnancy rates (OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.03 to 5.76, 1 RCT, n = 168). There were no data on multiple pregnancy. 2. Modified natural cycle FET comparisons Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) versus HT FETThere was no evidence of a difference in rates of live birth (OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.05, 1 RCT, n = 959, low-quality evidence) or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.83, 1 RCT, n = 959, low-quality evidence) between women in modified natural cycles and those who received HT. There were no data on miscarriage or multiple pregnancy. Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) versus HT plus GnRHa suppressionThere was no evidence of a difference between the two groups in rates of live birth (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.87, 1 RCT, n = 236, low-quality evidence) or miscarriage (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.19, 1 RCT, n = 236, low-quality evidence) rates. There were no data on ongoing pregnancy or multiple pregnancy. 3. HT FET comparisons HT FET versus HT plus GnRHa suppressionHT alone was associated with a lower live birth rate than HT with GnRHa suppression (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.30, 1 RCT, n = 75, low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in either miscarriage (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.12, 6 RCTs, n = 991, I = 0%, low-quality evidence) or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.72, 95% CI 0.61 to 4.85, 1 RCT, n = 106, very low-quality evidence).There were no data on multiple pregnancy. 4. Comparison of subtypes of ovulation induction FET Human menopausal gonadotrophin(HMG) versus clomiphene plus HMG HMG alone was associated with a higher live birth rate than clomiphene combined with HMG (OR 2.49, 95% CI 1.07 to 5.80, 1 RCT, n = 209, very low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in either miscarriage (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.35 to 5.09,1 RCT, n = 209, very low-quality evidence) or multiple pregnancy (OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.31 to 6.48, 1 RCT, n = 209, very low-quality evidence).There were no data on ongoing pregnancy.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review did not find sufficient evidence to support the use of one cycle regimen in preference to another in preparation for FET in subfertile women with regular ovulatory cycles. The most common modalities for FET are natural cycle with or without HCG trigger or endometrial preparation with HT, with or without GnRHa suppression. We identified only four direct comparisons of these two modalities and there was insufficient evidence to support the use of either one in preference to the other.
Topics: Clomiphene; Cryopreservation; Embryo Transfer; Endometrium; Estrogens; Female; Fertility Agents, Female; Follicular Phase; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Humans; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Progesterone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28675921
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003414.pub3