-
Platelets Dec 2024Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a therapeutic approach that is gaining attention for its potential in the treatment of poor ovarian response. This meta-analysis aimed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a therapeutic approach that is gaining attention for its potential in the treatment of poor ovarian response. This meta-analysis aimed to systematically review and analyze clinical studies to evaluate the impact of PRP on poor responders undergoing ovarian stimulation for IVF.
METHODS
A comprehensive search was conducted in electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant studies published in English. The pooled data, such as pregnancy outcome, number of MII oocytes, number of transferable embryos, and ovarian reserve markers were analyzed using R version 4.2.3.
RESULTS
A total of 10 trials were enrolled in the present meta-analysis. Following PRP treatment, live birth rate was found to be 16.6% (95% CI 8.8%-26.1%), while clinical pregnancy rate was observed to be 25.4% (95% CI 13.1%-39.9%). PRP pretreatment resulted in a higher number of MII oocytes (MD 1.073, 95% CI 0.720 to 1.427), a higher number of embryos (MD 0.946, 95% CI 0.569 to 1.323), a higher antral follicle count (MD 1.117; 95% CI 0.689 to 1.544), and the change of hormone levels.
CONCLUSIONS
Among the studies evaluated in this review, PRP showed promising results in poor responder. Further research is required to clarify the potential role of PRP in female reproductive health.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Fertilization in Vitro; Pregnancy Outcome; Pregnancy Rate; Ovulation Induction; Platelet-Rich Plasma
PubMed: 38214306
DOI: 10.1080/09537104.2023.2292612 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2024During a stimulated cycle of in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI), women receive daily doses of gonadotropin follicle-stimulating... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
During a stimulated cycle of in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI), women receive daily doses of gonadotropin follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) to induce multifollicular development in the ovaries. A normal response to stimulation (e.g. retrieval of 5 to 15 oocytes) is considered desirable. Generally, the number of eggs retrieved is associated with the dose of FSH. Both hyper-response and poor response are associated with an increased chance of cycle cancellation. In hyper-response, this is due to increased risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), while poor response cycles are cancelled because the quantity and quality of oocytes is expected to be low. Clinicians often individualise the FSH dose using patient characteristics predictive of ovarian response. Traditionally, this meant women's age, but increasingly, clinicians use various ovarian reserve tests (ORTs). These include basal FSH (bFSH), antral follicle count (AFC), and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH). It is unclear whether individualising FSH dose improves clinical outcomes. This review updates the 2018 version.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of individualised gonadotropin dose selection using markers of ovarian reserve in women undergoing IVF/ICSI.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registers in February 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared (a) different doses of FSH in women with a defined ORT profile (i.e. predicted low, normal, or high responders based on AMH, AFC, and/or bFSH) or (b) an individualised dosing strategy (based on at least one ORT measure) versus uniform dosing or a different individualised dosing algorithm.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Primary outcomes were live birth/ongoing pregnancy and severe OHSS.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 26 studies, involving 8520 women (6 new studies added to 20 studies included in the previous version). We treated RCTs with multiple comparisons as separate trials for the purpose of this review. Meta-analysis was limited due to clinical heterogeneity. Evidence certainty ranged from very low to low, with the main limitations being imprecision and risk of bias associated with lack of blinding. Direct dose comparisons according to predicted response in women Due to differences in dose comparisons, caution is required when interpreting the RCTs in predicted low responders. All evidence was low or very low certainty. Effect estimates were very imprecise, and increased FSH dosing may or may not have an impact on rates of live birth/ongoing pregnancy, OHSS, and clinical pregnancy. Similarly, in predicted normal responders (10 studies, 4 comparisons), higher doses may or may not impact the probability of live birth/ongoing pregnancy (e.g. 200 versus 100 international units (IU): odds ratio (OR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.36; I = 0%; 2 studies, 522 women) or clinical pregnancy. Results were imprecise, and a small benefit or harm remains possible. There were too few events for the OHSS outcome to enable inferences. In predicted high responders, lower doses may or may not affect live birth/ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.46; 1 study, 521 women), severe OHSS, and clinical pregnancy. It is also unclear whether lower doses reduce moderate or severe OHSS (Peto OR 2.31, 95% CI 0.80 to 6.67; 1 study, 521 participants). ORT-algorithm studies Eight trials compared an ORT-based algorithm to a non-ORT control group. It is unclear whether live birth/ongoing pregnancy and clinical pregnancy are increased using an ORT-based algorithm (live birth/ongoing pregnancy: OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.29; I = 30%; 7 studies, 4400 women; clinical pregnancy: OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.18; I = 18%; 7 studies, 4400 women; low-certainty evidence). However, ORT algorithms may reduce moderate or severe OHSS (Peto OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.84; I = 0%; 7 studies, 4400 women; low-certainty evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of severe OHSS (Peto OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.28; I = 0%; 5 studies, 2724 women; low-certainty evidence). Our findings suggest that if the chance of live birth with a standard starting dose is 25%, the chance with ORT-based dosing would be between 25% and 31%. If the chance of moderate or severe OHSS with a standard starting dose is 5%, the chance with ORT-based dosing would be between 2% and 5%. These results should be treated cautiously due to heterogeneity in the algorithms: some algorithms appear to be more effective than others.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We did not find that tailoring the FSH dose in any particular ORT population (low, normal, high ORT) affected live birth/ongoing pregnancy rates, but we could not rule out differences, due to sample size limitations. Low-certainty evidence suggests that it is unclear if ORT-based individualisation leads to an increase in live birth/ongoing pregnancy rates compared to a policy of giving all women 150 IU. The confidence interval is consistent with an increase of up to around six percentage points with ORT-based dosing (e.g. from 25% to 31%) or a very small decrease (< 1%). A difference of this magnitude could be important to many women. It is unclear if this is driven by improved outcomes in a particular subgroup. Further, ORT algorithms reduced the incidence of OHSS compared to standard dosing of 150 IU. However, the size of the effect is also unclear. The included studies were heterogeneous in design, which limited the interpretation of pooled estimates. It is likely that different ORT algorithms differ in their effectiveness. Current evidence does not provide a clear justification for adjusting the dose of 150 IU in poor or normal responders, especially as increased dose is associated with greater total FSH dose and cost. It is unclear whether a decreased dose in predicted high responders reduces OHSS, although this would appear to be the most likely explanation for the results.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Fertilization in Vitro; Follicle Stimulating Hormone; Follicle Stimulating Hormone, Human; Gonadotropins; Live Birth; Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome; Ovarian Reserve; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy Rate; Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic
PubMed: 38174816
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012693.pub3 -
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology... May 2024Insulin resistance is common in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Inositol may have insulin sensitizing effects; however, its efficacy in the management of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
CONTEXT
Insulin resistance is common in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Inositol may have insulin sensitizing effects; however, its efficacy in the management of PCOS remains indeterminate.
OBJECTIVE
To inform the 2023 international evidence-based guidelines in PCOS, this systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy of inositol, alone or in combination with other therapies, in the management of PCOS.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, PsycInfo, EMBASE, All EBM, and CINAHL from inception until August 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
Thirty trials (n = 2230; 1093 intervention, 1137 control), with 19 pooled in meta-analyses were included.
DATA EXTRACTION
Data were extracted for hormonal, metabolic, lipids, psychological, anthropometric, reproductive outcomes, and adverse effects by 1 reviewer, independently verified by a second.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Thirteen comparisons were assessed, with 3 in meta-analyses. Evidence suggests benefits for myo-inositol or D-chiro-inositol (DCI) for some metabolic measures and potential benefits from DCI for ovulation, but inositol may have no effect on other outcomes. Metformin may improve waist-hip ratio and hirsutism compared to inositol, but there is likely no difference for reproductive outcomes, and the evidence is very uncertain for body mass indexI. Myo-inositol likely causes fewer gastrointestinal adverse events compared with metformin; however, these are typically mild and self-limited.
CONCLUSION
The evidence supporting the use of inositol in the management of PCOS is limited and inconclusive. Clinicians and their patients should consider the uncertainty of the evidence together with individual values and preferences when engaging in shared decision-making regarding the use of inositol for PCOS.
Topics: Polycystic Ovary Syndrome; Humans; Inositol; Female; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Insulin Resistance; Evidence-Based Medicine
PubMed: 38163998
DOI: 10.1210/clinem/dgad762 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2023To evaluate the effects of ovarian injection of autologous platelet rich plasma (aPRP) on patients with poor ovarian responder (POR) based on the existing clinical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effects of ovarian injection of autologous platelet rich plasma (aPRP) on patients with poor ovarian responder (POR) based on the existing clinical evidence.
METHODS
According to systematic review and meta-analysis, we comprehensively searched nine databases established as of September 6, 2023, and evaluated the impact of ovarian PRP infusion on poor ovarian responder. The research results include serum follicle-stimulating hormone(FSH) and anti-Mullerian hormone(AMH) levels, antral Follicle Count(AFC), oocyte number, and embryo number. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of inclusion in trials.
RESULTS
Add up to 10 studies consisting of 793 participants were included in the meta-analysis. A review of existing evidence showed that intraovarian injection of PRP has significant therapeutic effects in increasing levels of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) (SMD=0.44,95% CI [0.07,0.81], p=0.02), antral follicle count (AFC) (MD=1.15,95% CI [0.4,1.90], p=0.003), oocyte count (MD=0.91, 95% CI [0.40, 1.41], p=0.0004), and embryo number (MD=0.78, 95% CI [0.5,1.07], p<0.0001). We compared the relevant data of patients before and after treatment after 2 months of intervention. It can be seen that ovarian injection of PRP treatment for 2 months has better effects in reducing FSH levels, increasing AMH levels, increasing antral follicle count, and increasing the number of oocytes and embryos (p<0.05). When the dose of PRP injected into each ovary was ≥ 4ml, there was also a significant correlation (p<0.05) with improving the number of AFC, oocytes and embryos. Significant heterogeneity existed among the studies.
CONCLUSION
The pooled results suggest that intra-ovarian injection of PRP can promote ovarian regeneration and improve the reproductive outcomes of patients with ovarian dysfunction. This therapy may have significant clinical potential in improving sex hormone levels, increasing AFC, oocyte count, and embryo count. However, this findings still requires more rigorous and extensive trials worldwide to determine the value of intra-ovarian injection of PRP in POR patients.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk, Identifier CRD42023451232.
Topics: Female; Humans; Ovary; Fertilization in Vitro; Anti-Mullerian Hormone; Ovulation Induction; Follicle Stimulating Hormone; Follicle Stimulating Hormone, Human; Platelet-Rich Plasma
PubMed: 38155954
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1292168 -
Fertility and Sterility Feb 2024Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome is a serious complication associated with assisted reproductive technology. This systematic review aims to identify who is at high risk...
Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome is a serious complication associated with assisted reproductive technology. This systematic review aims to identify who is at high risk for developing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, along with evidence-based strategies to prevent it and replaces the document of the same name last published in 2016.
Topics: Female; Humans; Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome; Ovulation Induction; Reproductive Techniques, Assisted
PubMed: 38099867
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2023.11.013 -
Expert Reviews in Molecular Medicine Dec 2023In vitro fertilization (IVF) and embryo transfer and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) have allowed millions of infertile couples to achieve pregnancy. As an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Live birth rate of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist versus luteal phase gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist protocol in IVF/ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
In vitro fertilization (IVF) and embryo transfer and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) have allowed millions of infertile couples to achieve pregnancy. As an essential part of IVF/ICSI enabling the retrieval of a high number of oocytes in one cycle, controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) treatment mainly composes of the standard long gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) protocol and the gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocol. However, the effectiveness of GnRH-ant protocol is still debated because of inconsistent conclusions and insufficient subgroup analyses. This systematic review and meta-analysis included a total of 52 studies, encompassing 5193 participants in the GnRH-ant group and 4757 in the GnRH-a group. The findings of this study revealed that the GnRH-ant protocol is comparable with the long GnRH-a protocol when considering live birth as the primary outcome, and it is a favourable protocol with evidence reducing the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in women undergoing IVF/ICSI, especially in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Further research is needed to compare the subsequent cumulative live birth rate between the two protocols among the general and poor ovarian response patients since those patients have a lower clinical pregnancy rate, fewer oocytes retrieved or fewer high-grade embryos in the GnRH-ant protocol.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Pregnancy; Birth Rate; Fertilization in Vitro; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Hormone Antagonists; Luteal Phase; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Ovulation Induction; Semen; Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 38095077
DOI: 10.1017/erm.2023.25 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2023Using Mesh Meta Analysis to evaluate the efficacy of Acupuncture & Moxibustion, Clomiphene, Acupuncture & Moxibustion combined with Clomiphene for treating Polycystic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Using Mesh Meta Analysis to evaluate the efficacy of Acupuncture & Moxibustion, Clomiphene, Acupuncture & Moxibustion combined with Clomiphene for treating Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS), in order to provide evidence-based medical evidence for whether to recommend Acupuncture & Moxibustion or Combine western medicine to treat PCOS.
METHODS
Eight databases including The Cochrane Library, Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Date, VIP and CBM were searched by computer. The included research period is from the establishment of the database to May 2023, which concerned with randomized controlled trials involving Acupuncture & Moxibustion, Clomiphene, Acupuncture & Moxibustion combined with Clomiphene on ovulation induction and pregnancy outcome in patients with PCOS. The duration of the research paper is from 2016 to 2023.The inclusion criteria refer to the Rotterdam standards issued by the European Center for Human Reproduction and Embryology and the American Society of Reproductive Medicine in January 2003, or the Expert Consensus on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome by the Endocrinology Group of the Obstetrics and Gynecology Branch of the Chinese Medical Association. Simultaneously exclude related diseases, repetitive literature, as well as literature with incomplete abstract information and no original data provided. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias included in the study, using Stata17.0 software for a mesh meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Six randomized controlled trials were included, covering 1410 PCOS patients. Three interventions included Acupuncture & Moxibustion, Clomiphene, Acupuncture & Moxibustion combined with Clomiphene. Mesh Meta Analysis showed that in terms of improving ovulation rate, there was no statistical difference between Acupuncture & Moxibustion (A), Clomiphene (B), Clomiphene combined with Acupuncture & Moxibustion (C) (P>0.05).Acupuncture & Moxibustion (A) versus Clomiphene (B) [MD=0.15,95% CI (-0.51,0.80)], Acupuncture & Moxibustion (A) versus Clomiphene combined with Acupuncture & Moxibustion (C) [MD=1.60,95% CI (0.97,2.23)], Clomiphene (B) versus Clomiphene combined with Acupuncture & Moxibustion (C) [MD=1.45,95% CI (0.91,1.99)]. In terms of pregnancy outcome, the difference between the three intervention methods was statistically significant (P<0.05). Acupuncture & Moxibustion (A) versus Clomiphene (B) [MD=-0.80,95% CI (-1.84,0.23)], Acupuncture & Moxibustion (A) versus Clomiphene combined with Acupuncture & Moxibustion (C) [MD=0.29,95% CI (-0.73,1.30)], and Clomiphene (B) versus Clomiphene combined with Acupuncture & Moxibustion (C) [MD=1.09,95% CI (0.39,1.79)], The order of pregnancy rate from high to low is Acupuncture & Moxibustion combined with Clomiphene (C), Acupuncture & Moxibustion (A), Clomiphene (C).In terms of influencing endometrial thickness, the difference between the three intervention methods was statistically significant (P<0.05). Acupuncture & Moxibustion (A) versus Clomiphene (B) [MD=-0.84,95% CI (-1.87,0.19)], Acupuncture & Moxibustion (A) versus Acupuncture & Moxibustion combined with Clomiphene (C) [MD=0.26,95% CI (-1.01,1.53)], Clomiphene (B) versus Acupuncture & Moxibustion combined with Clomiphene (C) [MD=1.10,95% CI (0.36,1.84)], Acupuncture & Moxibustion combined with Clomiphene (C) has the best effect on improving endometrial thickness. In subgroup analysis, the effect of Acupuncture & Moxibustion treatment frequency on ovulation rate and pregnancy rate was not statistically significant. The combination of Acupuncture & Moxibustion, Electroacupuncture and warm Acupuncture & Moxibustion has no effect on the pregnancy rate, but the combination of Electroacupuncture and Clomiphene has the best effect on improving the ovulation rate. In the observation of adverse reactions, compared with clomiphene alone, Acupuncture & Moxibustion combined with Clomiphene can reduce the occurrence of Luteinized Unruptured Follicle Syndrome (LUFS) and Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome (OHSS), and reduce the occurrence of physical adverse reactions such as nausea, vomiting, headache and dermatitis.
CONCLUSION
Acupuncture & Moxibustion is effective in improving the ovulation promoting effect and pregnancy outcome of PCOS patients. The ovulation promoting effect of Acupuncture & Moxibustion or combined with Clomiphene is similar to that of Clomiphene alone, but Acupuncture & Moxibustion combined with Clomiphene has more advantages in improving the pregnancy rate of PCOS, and it also can reduce the adverse reactions of Clomiphene alone. Acupuncture & Moxibustion can be used as a recommended treatment for PCOS. More cases should also be included in the subgroup analysis to study the impact of Acupuncture & Moxibustion programs on clinical efficacy and further optimize the Acupuncture & Moxibustion treatment program.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#myprospero, identifier (CRD42023433057).
Topics: Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Clomiphene; Pregnancy Outcome; Polycystic Ovary Syndrome; Moxibustion; Acupuncture Therapy; Ovulation Induction
PubMed: 38075051
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1261016 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2023Currently, gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues are used to prevent premature ovulation in ART cycles. However, their costs remain high, the route of... (Review)
Review
Progestogens for prevention of luteinising hormone (LH) surge in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation as part of an assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycle.
BACKGROUND
Currently, gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues are used to prevent premature ovulation in ART cycles. However, their costs remain high, the route of administration is invasive and has some adverse effects. Oral progestogens could be cheaper and effective to prevent a premature LH surge.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of using progestogens to avoid spontaneous ovulation in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO in Dec 2021. We contacted study authors and experts to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included progestogens for ovulation inhibition in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane, including the risk of bias (RoB) assessment. The primary review outcomes were live birth rate (LBR) and oocyte pick-up cancellation rate (OPCR). Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), cumulative pregnancy, miscarriage rate (MR), multiple pregnancies, LH surge, total and MII oocytes, days of stimulation, dose of gonadotropins, and moderate/severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) rate. The primary analyses were restricted to studies at overall low and some concerns RoB, and sensitivity analysis included all studies. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 RCTs (2643 subfertile women undergoing ART, 47 women used oocyte freezing for fertility preservation and 534 oocyte donors). Progestogens versus GnRH antagonists We are very uncertain of the effect of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) 10 mg compared with cetrorelix on the LBR in poor responders (odds ratio (OR) 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 2.13, one RCT, N = 340, very-low-certainty evidence), suggesting that if the chance of live birth following GnRH antagonists is assumed to be 18%, the chance following MPA would be 14% to 32%. There may be little or no difference in OPCR between progestogens and GnRH antagonists, but due to wide Cs (CIs), we are uncertain (OR 0.92, 95%CI 0.42 to 2.01, 3 RCTs, N = 648, I² = 0%, low-certainty evidence), changing the chance of OPCR from 4% with progestogens to 2% to 8%. Given the imprecision found, no conclusions can be retrieved on CPR and MR. Low-quality evidence suggested that using micronised progesterone in normo-responders may increase by 2 to 6 the MII oocytes in comparison to GnRH antagonists. There may be little or no differences in gonadotropin doses. Progestogens versus GnRH agonists Results were uncertain for all outcomes comparing progestogens with GnRH agonists. One progestogen versus another progestogen The analyses comparing one progestogen versus another progestogen for LBR did not meet our criteria for primary analyses. The OPCR was probably lower in the MPA 10 mg in comparison to MPA 4 mg (OR 2.27, 95%CI 0.90 to 5.74, one RCT, N = 300, moderate-certainty evidence), and MPA 4 mg may be lower than micronised progesterone 100 mg, but due to wide CI, we are uncertain of the effect (OR 0.81, 95%CI 0.43 to 1.53, one RCT, N = 300, low-certainty evidence), changing the chance of OPCR from 5% with MPA 4 mg to 5% to22%, and from 17% with micronised progesterone 100 mg to 8% to 24%. When comparing dydrogesterone 20 mg to MPA, the OPCR is probably lower in the dydrogesterone group in comparison to MPA 10 mg (OR 1.49, 95%CI 0.80 to 2.80, one RCT, N = 520, moderate-certainty evidence), and it may be lower in dydrogesterone group in comparison to MPA 4 mg but due to wide confidence interval, we are uncertain of the effect (OR 1.19, 95%CI 0.61 to 2.34, one RCT, N = 300, low-certainty evidence), changing the chance of OPCR from 7% with dydrogesterone 20 to 6-17%, and in MPA 4 mg from 12% to 8% to 24%. When comparing dydrogesterone 20 mg to micronised progesterone 100 mg, the OPCR is probably lower in the dydrogesterone group (OR 1.54, 95%CI 0.94 to 2.52, two RCTs, N=550, I² = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence), changing OPCR from 11% with dydrogesterone to 10% to 24%. We are very uncertain of the effect in normo-responders of micronised progesterone 100 mg compared with micronised progesterone 200 mg on the OPCR (OR 0.35, 95%CI 0.09 to 1.37, one RCT, N = 150, very-low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in CPR and MR between MPA 10 mg and dydrogesterone 20 mg. There may be little or no differences in MII oocytes and gonadotropins doses. No cases of moderate/severe OHSS were reported in most of the groups in any of the comparisons.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Little or no differences in LBR may exist when comparing MPA 4 mg with GnRH agonists in normo-responders. OPCR may be slightly increased in the MPA 4 mg group, but MPA 4 mg reduces the doses of gonadotropins in comparison to GnRH agonists. Little or no differences in OPCR may exist between progestogens and GnRH antagonists in normo-responders and donors. However, micronised progesterone could improve by 2 to 6 MII oocytes. When comparing one progestogen to another, dydrogesterone suggested slightly lower OPCR than MPA and micronised progesterone, and MPA suggested slightly lower OPCR than the micronised progesterone 100 mg. Finally, MPA 10 mg suggests a lower OPCR than MPA 4 mg. There is uncertainty regarding the rest of the outcomes due to imprecision and no solid conclusions can be drawn.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Abortion, Spontaneous; Dydrogesterone; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Gonadotropins; Live Birth; Luteinizing Hormone; Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy Rate; Progesterone; Progestins; Reproductive Techniques, Assisted
PubMed: 38032057
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013827.pub2 -
Reproductive Sciences (Thousand Oaks,... Apr 2024Clomiphene citrate (CC) and letrozole are the predominant medical interventions for the management of infertility in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). To... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Clomiphene citrate (CC) and letrozole are the predominant medical interventions for the management of infertility in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). To comprehensively summarize the evidence, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) was carried out to assess the effect of letrozole and CC on pregnancy outcomes in PCOS patients. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to January 2023. We included RCTs conducted on PCOS women comparing letrozole to CC and assessing endometrial thickness, the number and size of follicles, and ovulation and pregnancy rates. The endpoints were summarized as risk ratio (RR) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using the random-effects model. Heterogeneity was examined using the I statistic. Fifty trials met our inclusion criteria. The mean endometrial thickness was significantly higher in the letrozole group compared to CC group (SMD: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.49, 1.28; I=97.72%); however, the number of follicles was higher in the CC group (SMD: -0.56; 95% CI: -0.96, -0.17; I=96.34%). Furthermore, letrozole intake induced higher ovulation rate (RR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.13, 1.26; I=54.49%) and pregnancy rate (RR: 1.44; 95% CI: 1.28, 1.62; I=65.58%) compared to CC. Compared to CC, letrozole has a positive effect on endometrial thickness, monofollicular development, and ovulation and pregnancy rates suggesting that letrozole may be a strong alternative to CC as a first-line medical intervention for chronic anovulation in PCOS women. Larger studies are warranted to further clarify these findings.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Letrozole; Pregnancy Outcome; Polycystic Ovary Syndrome; Fertility Agents, Female; Infertility, Female; Birth Rate; Ovulation Induction; Clomiphene; Pregnancy Rate
PubMed: 38030814
DOI: 10.1007/s43032-023-01404-8 -
Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine 2024In the absence of timely treatment, the risk of rupture in patients with ectopic pregnancy (EP) increases, which is associated with extensive bleeding, complicated... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
In the absence of timely treatment, the risk of rupture in patients with ectopic pregnancy (EP) increases, which is associated with extensive bleeding, complicated surgery, and maternal death. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of rupture and its related factors among EP cases.
METHODS
A comprehensive, systematic search was conducted in electronic databases, such as Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Persian electronic databases such as Iranmedex, and Scientific Information Database using keywords extracted from Medical Subject Headings such as "Ectopic pregnancies", "Extrauterine pregnancies", and "Ruptured ectopic pregnancy" from the earliest to the 13th of December 2022. The CMA program, version 3, was utilized for analysis. The overall effect size was calculated using the sample size and the frequency of rupture in each of the studies. Heterogeneity was measured using the I statistics.
RESULTS
A total of 5,269 women with EP participated in 17 studies. The pooled prevalence of rupture was 56.4% (95%CI: 44.9% to 67.2%; I=98.09%; P<0.001). Factors such as number of parties, amount of β-hCG, age, history of ectopic pregnancy, cornual and isthmic pregnancies, gestational age, number of gravidities, history of tubal ligation, tubal diameters, periods of infertility, history of infertility, pregnancy by ovulation induction, extensive hemoperitoneum, ampullar and isthmic pregnancies, ampullar pregnancies, preoperative heart rate (HR), triage, triage shock index (SI), abdominal pain, single marital status, preoperative hemoglobin levels, preoperative hematocrit levels, history of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), and use of contraceptives were associated with the prevalence of rupture in EP cases.
CONCLUSION
Based on the findings, 56.4% of EP cases experienced rupture and various factors influence its prevalence. As a result, health managers and policymakers can address and mitigate modifiable factors contributing to rupture in EP cases by implementing regular consultations and screenings.
PubMed: 38022716
DOI: 10.22037/aaem.v11i1.2172