-
Reproductive Biomedicine Online Apr 2024This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of ovarian endometriomas (OMA) on indirect markers of oocyte quality in patients undergoing IVF,... (Review)
Review
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of ovarian endometriomas (OMA) on indirect markers of oocyte quality in patients undergoing IVF, compared with women without anatomical or functional ovarian abnormalities. The search spanned original randomized controlled trials, case-control studies and cohort studies published in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and the ClinicalTrials.gov database up to October 2023. Thirty-one studies were included in the meta-analysis, showing no significant differences in fertilization (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.94-1.30), blastulation (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64-1.14) and cancellation (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.78-1.44) rates. However, patients with OMA exhibited significantly lower numbers of total and mature (metaphase II) oocytes retrieved (mean difference -1.59, 95% CI -2.25 to -0.94; mean difference -1.86, 95% CI -2.46 to -1.26, respectively), and lower numbers of top-quality embryos (mean difference -0.49, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.06). The Ovarian Sensitivity Index was similar between the groups (mean difference -1.55, 95% CI -3.27 to 0.18). The lack of data published to date prevented meta-analysis on euploidy rate. In conclusion, although the presence of OMA could decrease the oocyte yield in patients undergoing IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection, it does not appear to have an adverse impact on oocyte quality.
PubMed: 38943812
DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2024.104075 -
BMC Women's Health Apr 2024Poor ovarian response (POR) patients often encounter cycle cancellation and egg retrieval obstacles in assisted reproductive technology. Platelet rich plasma (PRP)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The effect of ovarian response parameters and the synergistic effect of assisted reproduction of poor ovarian response treated with platelet rich plasma: systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Poor ovarian response (POR) patients often encounter cycle cancellation and egg retrieval obstacles in assisted reproductive technology. Platelet rich plasma (PRP) ovarian injection is a potential treatment method, but the treatment methods are different, and the treatment results are controversial.
OBJECTIVE
This study adopts a systematic review and meta-analysis method based on clinical research to explore the efficacy and safety of PRP injection on POR.
METHOD
The following databases were searched for research published before March 2023; Medline (via PubMed), Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Embase, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database (CNKI). The literature was then screened by two independent researchers, who extracted the data and evaluated its quality. Research was selected according to the inclusion criteria, and its quality was evaluated according to the NOS standard Cohort study. The bias risk of the included study was assessed with STATE 14.0. RevMan 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
Ten studies were included in the analysis, including 7 prospective cohort studies and 3 retrospective studies involving 836 patients. The results showed that after PRP treatment, follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) significantly decreased and anti-Mueller hormone (AMH) and luteinizing hormone (LH) significantly increased in POR patients, but estradiol did not change significantly; The number of antral follicles increased, and the number of obtaining eggs and mature oocytes significantly increased; The number of Metaphase type II oocytes, 2PN and high-quality embryos, and cleavage stage embryos significantly increased. In addition, the patient cycle cancellation rates significantly decreased. The rate of natural pregnancy assisted reproductive pregnancy and live birth increased significantly. Four reports made it clear that no adverse reactions were observed.
CONCLUSION
PRP may have the potential to improve pre-assisted reproductive indicators in POR patients, increase the success rate of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) in POR patients, and improve embryo quality, and may be beneficial to the pregnancy outcome. There is no obvious potential risk in this study, but further clinical support is still needed.
Topics: Humans; Female; Platelet-Rich Plasma; Ovulation Induction; Reproductive Techniques, Assisted; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Oocyte Retrieval; Follicle Stimulating Hormone; Luteinizing Hormone; Ovary
PubMed: 38678276
DOI: 10.1186/s12905-024-03101-3 -
Reproductive Biomedicine Online Dec 2023The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to quantify the effect of random start ovarian stimulation (RSOS) compared with conventional start ovarian... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to quantify the effect of random start ovarian stimulation (RSOS) compared with conventional start ovarian stimulation (CSOS) in cancer patients before gonadotoxic treatment. The final analytical cohort encompassed 688 RSOS and 1076 CSOS cycles of cancer patients before gonadotoxic treatment. Eleven studies were identified by database searches of MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and cited references. The primary outcomes of interest were the number of oocytes and mature oocytes collected, the number of embryos cryopreserved and the metaphase II (MII)-antral follicle count (AFC) ratio. The studies were rated from medium to high quality (from 6 to 9) according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. The two protocols resulted in similar numbers of oocytes collected, MII oocytes, embryos available for cryopreservation and comparable MII-AFC and fertilization rates. The duration of ovarian stimulation was longer (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.35, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.61; P = 0.009) and gonadotrophin consumption was higher (SMD 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.40; P = 0.009) in RSOS compared with CSOS. This systematic review and meta-analysis show that the duration of stimulation is longer, and the total gonadotrophin consumption is higher in cancer patients undergoing RSOS compared with those undergoing CSOS, with no significant effect on mature oocyte yield.
Topics: Humans; Female; Fertility Preservation; Oocyte Retrieval; Cryopreservation; Neoplasms; Oocytes; Gonadotropins; Ovulation Induction; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37857156
DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2023.103337 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2023Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a common endocrinopathy causing infertility in childbearing women. Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol has recently... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
UNLABELLED
Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a common endocrinopathy causing infertility in childbearing women. Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol has recently been used for infertile women. However, whether PPOS provides a significant benefit over gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogue protocols in PCOS is still controversial. The objective of this systematic review is to investigate the efficacy of PPOS in patients with PCOS during fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). We searched Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to April 1, 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing the efficacy between PPOS and conventional GnRH analogue protocols in patients with PCOS in English were included. The primary outcomes included live birth rate, the incidence of moderate or severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), and the number of metaphase II oocytes. The pooled estimates were calculated using the random-effects models as odds ratios (OR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Three RCTs and six cohort studies involving 2289 patients were included. Results from RCTs suggest that PPOS leads to no significant difference in the risk of OHSS, the number of metaphase II oocytes, or the rate of live birth when compared to GnRH analogue protocols. The pooling estimates of cohort studies showed consistent results. Additionally, in cohort studies, PPOS required a higher dose of Gn and tended to improve the implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and ongoing pregnancy rate. For subgroup analyses, the higher implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and ongoing pregnancy rate were found in PPOS compared to the GnRH agonist short protocol. However, the certainty of the evidence for the outcomes was generally low. Overall, There is currently no evidence to support that PPOS could reduce the risk of OHSS, increase oocyte maturation, or improve pregnancy outcomes in women with PCOS undergoing IVF/ICSI when compared to GnRH analogue protocols. Considering its efficiency and safety, this protocol could be a patient-friendly and viable alternative for PCOS patients, especially when frozen-thawed embryo transfer is planned. Future high-quality randomized trials with children's long-term safety and cost-effective analyses are still required.
SYSTEM REVIEW REGISTRATION
NPLASY (202340059). https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2023-4-0059/.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Fertilization in Vitro; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome; Ovulation Induction; Polycystic Ovary Syndrome; Progestins; Steroids
PubMed: 37795363
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1224858 -
European Journal of Obstetrics,... Oct 2023To conduct a systematic review andmeta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated whether dual triggering [a combination of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review andmeta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated whether dual triggering [a combination of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG)] of final oocyte maturation can improve the number of oocytes retrieved and clinical pregnancy rate in low or normal responders undergoing in-vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) cycles using a GnRH-antagonist protocol.
STUDY DESIGN
Studies up to October 2022 were identified from PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. The risk of bias of included studies was assessed. Dichotomous outcomes were reported as relative risks (RR), and continuous outcomes were reported as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The primary outcomes were number of oocytes retrieved, number of mature [metaphase II (MII)] oocytes, clinical pregnancy rate and ongoing pregnancy rate; other IVF outcomes were considered as secondary outcomes.
RESULTS
Seven studies were identified, and 898 patients were eligible for inclusion in this meta-analysis. The results showed that the number of oocytes retrieved [WMD = 1.38 (95% CI 0.47-2.28), I = 66%, p = 0.003, low evidence], number of MII oocytes [WMD = 0.7 (95% CI 0.35-1.05), I = 42%, p < 0.0001, moderate evidence], number of embryos [WMD = 0.68 (95% CI 0.07-1.3), I = 67%, p = 0.03, low evidence] and number of good-quality embryos [WMD = 1.14 (95% CI 0.35-1.93), I = 0%, p = 0.005, moderate evidence] in the dual trigger group were significantly higher than in the hCG trigger group. The results of the ovarian response subgroup analysis showed significant differences in all of these outcomes in normal responders, and no differences in any of the outcomes in low responders, except for the number of MII oocytes. In low responders, clinical pregnancy rates may be improved in the dual trigger group [RR = 2.2 (95% CI 1.05-4.61), I = 28%, p = 0.04, low evidence].
CONCLUSION
Dual triggering by GnRH agonist and hCG improved oocyte maturity and embryo grading for normal responders in GnRH-antagonist cycles. Dual triggering for final oocyte maturation may improve clinical pregnancy rates in low responders.
Topics: Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ovulation; Fertilization in Vitro; Chorionic Gonadotropin; Hormone Antagonists; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone
PubMed: 37639817
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.08.014