Search

The present review describes, on the basis of the currently available evidence, the consensus reached by a group of experts on the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists in ovarian stimulation for IVF. The single or multiple low-dose administration of GnRH antagonist during the late-follicular phase effectively prevents a premature rise in serum luteinizing hormone (LH) levels in most women. Although controversy remains, most comparative studies suggest a slight, not significant reduction in the probability of pregnancy after IVF using GnRH antagonist versus GnRH agonist co-treatment. Published meta-analyses suggest that this slight difference in pregnancy rates is not attributed to chance. Further studies applying varying treatment regimens and outcome measures are required. Data are not in favour of a need to modify the starting dose of gonadotropins. Data are not in favour of increasing gonadotropin dose at GnRH antagonist initiation. The addition of LH from the initiation of ovarian stimulation or from GnRH antagonist administration does not appear to be necessary. Replacement of human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) by GnRH agonist for triggering final oocyte maturation is associated with a lower probability of pregnancy. The optimal timing for HCG administration needs to be explored further. GnRH antagonist initiation on day 6 of stimulation appears to be superior to flexible initiation by a follicle of 14–16 mm, although earlier GnRH antagonist administration is worth further evaluation. Luteal phase supplementation in GnRH antagonist protocols remains mandatory in IVF. Effects of GnRH antagonist co-treatment on the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome remains uncertain, although a trend is present in favour of the GnRH antagonists. The role of GnRH antagonists in ovarian stimulation for IVF appears to be promising, although many questions regarding preferred dose regimens and effects on clinical outcomes remain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Over a million children have been born from assisted conception worldwide. Newer techniques being introduced appear less and less natural, such as intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), but there is little information on these children beyond the neonatal period. METHODS: 540 ICSI conceived 5-year-old children from five European countries were comprehensively assessed, along with 538 matched naturally conceived children and 437 children conceived with standard IVF. RESULTS: Of the 540 ICSI children examined, 63 (4.2%) had experienced a major congenital malformation. Compared with naturally conceived children, the odds of a major malformation were 2.77 (95% CI 1.415.46) for ICSI children and 1.80 (95% CI 0.853.81) for IVF children; these estimates were little affected by adjustment for socio-demographic factors. The higher rate observed in the ICSI group was due partially to an excess of malformations in the (boys') urogenital system. In addition, ICSI and IVF children were more likely than naturally conceived children to have had a significant childhood illness, to have had a surgical operation, to require medical therapy and to be admitted to hospital. A detailed physical examination revealed no further substantial differences between the groups, however. CONCLUSIONS: Singleton ICSI and IVF 5-year-olds are more likely to need health care resources than naturally conceived children. Assessment of singleton ICSI and IVF children at 5 years of age was generally reassuring, however, we found that ICSI children presented with more major congenital malformations and both ICSI and IVF children were more likely to need health care resources than naturally conceived children. Ongoing monitoring of these children is therefore required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: ICSI is used with increasing frequency, but there is less information about the children born following this method of assisted reproduction than other forms of IVF. Some authors have suggested that it may contribute to more family stress than IVF. METHODS: ICSI conceived children were compared with IVF conceived children and naturally conceived (NC) controls. They were selected in five European countries: Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Sweden and the UK, and seen for psychological testing and a paediatric examination when they were 5 years old. In all countries, except Greece, mothers and fathers were asked to complete questionnaires about parental well‐being, family relationships, parenting and child behaviour. RESULTS: Very few differences were found between the ICSI and NC group or the ICSI and IVF group. The only significant differences were that mothers in the ICSI conceived group reported fewer hostile or aggressive feelings towards the child and higher levels of commitment to parenting than the mothers of NC children. CONCLUSIONS: The study confirms the results of previous work with IVF families. This should be encouraging for families using these techniques in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND The purpose of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine whether the probability of pregnancy is increased by adding estrogen to progesterone for luteal phase support in patients treated by in vitro fertilization (IVF). METHODS A literature search covering MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, meeting proceedings and reference lists of published articles was performed to identify relevant RCTs. Data were extracted for meta-analysis yielding pooled relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Sensitivity analyses by including studies with pseudo-randomization or unclear method of randomization were also performed (n=1141 patients in total). RESULTS Four RCTs (n=587 patients) were eligible for inclusion. No statistically significant differences were present between patients who received a combination of progesterone and estrogen for luteal support when compared with those who received only progesterone, in terms of positive hCG rate (RR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.87–1.19), clinical pregnancy rate (RR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.78–1.13) and live birth rate (RR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.77–1.21) per woman randomized. These results did not materially differ in the sensitivity analyses performed. CONCLUSIONS The currently available evidence suggests that the addition of estrogen to progesterone for luteal phase support does not increase the probability of pregnancy in IVF. However, there is an obvious need for further RCTs that will assess, with more confidence, the effect of estrogen addition to progesterone during the luteal phase on the probability of pregnancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess whether the addition of recombinant luteinizing hormone (LH) increases live birth rate, among patients treated with follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) and gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues for in vitro fertilization (IVF). Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) answering the research question that contained sufficient information to allow ascertainment of whether randomization was true and whether equality was present between the groups compared, regarding baseline demographic characteristics, gonadotrophin stimulation protocol, number of embryos transferred and luteal phase support administered. A literature search identified seven RCTs (701 patients) that provided the information of interest, among which five reported agonist and two antagonist cycles. The reported outcome measure, clinical pregnancy, was converted to live birth using published data in one study. No significant difference in the probability of live birth was present with or without rLH addition to FSH (odds ratio [OR]: 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.65–1.31; P = 0.65). This finding remained stable in subgroup analyses that ordered the studies by dose of rLH added, the type of analogue used to inhibit premature LH surge, the time rLH was added during the follicular phase, the age of patients analysed, the presence of allocation concealment and by the way the information on live birth was retrieved. In conclusion, the available evidence does not support the hypothesis that the addition of recombinant LH increases the live birth rate in patients treated with FSH and GnRH analogues for IVF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]