Triggering oocyte maturation in IVF treatment in normal responders: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

IF 6.6 1区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Yusuf Beebeejaun, Timothy Copeland, James M N Duffy, Ippokratis Sarris, Marian Showell, Rui Wang, Sesh K Sunkara
{"title":"Triggering oocyte maturation in IVF treatment in normal responders: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.","authors":"Yusuf Beebeejaun, Timothy Copeland, James M N Duffy, Ippokratis Sarris, Marian Showell, Rui Wang, Sesh K Sunkara","doi":"10.1016/j.fertnstert.2024.11.011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare efficacy and safety of hCG, GnRH agonist, dual, and double triggers in predicted normal responders undergoing ovarian stimulation and IVF DESIGN: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>RCTs indexed in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, clinical trial registries and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews up to December 2023.</p><p><strong>Study selection and synthesis: </strong>Twelve high-integrity RCTs comprising 1,931 women were included, which compared hCG trigger to GnRH agonist trigger, dual trigger, and double trigger. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA version 16.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes: </strong>Key outcomes included clinical pregnancy rates (CPR), live birth rates (LBR), number of oocytes, number of mature oocytes, miscarriage rate and rates of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The network meta-analysis for CPR were relative risk (RR) 1.13 (95% Confidence Interval (CI):0.80-1.60) for hCG versus GnRH agonist trigger, RR 1.23 (95% CI:0.92-1.65) for hCG versus dual trigger, RR 0.38 (95% CI:0.21-0.69) for hCG versus double trigger, RR 1.09 (95% CI:0.70-1.70) for GnRH agonist versus dual trigger and 0.34 (95% CI:0.17-0.67) for GnRH agonist versus double trigger and RR 0.31 (95%CI:0.16-0.60) for double versus dual trigger. Dual trigger demonstrated the highest SUCRA (85.1%), indicating superior efficacy for clinical pregnancy rates. For LBR, while connectivity was limited, the RR was 1.31 (95% CI: 1.00-1.70) for dual versus hCG trigger, and RR 1.60 (95% CI: 1.05-2.43) for dual versus GnRH agonist trigger. OHSS rates were significantly lower with the GnRH agonist compared to hCG trigger (RR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.19-1.75). There were no randomized controlled trials reporting OHSS rates with the use of dual or double trigger. No significant differences were observed in the number of oocytes retrieved, mature oocytes, or miscarriage rates among the trigger protocols.</p><p><strong>Conclusion and relevance: </strong>The findings indicate that there is no evidence to suggest that using GnRH agonist, dual, or double protocols is superior to hCG trigger in improving clinical pregnancy rates. While live birth rates may benefit from dual trigger, results are limited by available RCTs. Larger, multicentre trials are needed for further evaluation of live birth rates and understanding of long-term outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":12275,"journal":{"name":"Fertility and sterility","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fertility and sterility","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2024.11.011","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare efficacy and safety of hCG, GnRH agonist, dual, and double triggers in predicted normal responders undergoing ovarian stimulation and IVF DESIGN: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Data sources: RCTs indexed in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, clinical trial registries and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews up to December 2023.

Study selection and synthesis: Twelve high-integrity RCTs comprising 1,931 women were included, which compared hCG trigger to GnRH agonist trigger, dual trigger, and double trigger. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA version 16.

Main outcomes: Key outcomes included clinical pregnancy rates (CPR), live birth rates (LBR), number of oocytes, number of mature oocytes, miscarriage rate and rates of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS).

Results: The network meta-analysis for CPR were relative risk (RR) 1.13 (95% Confidence Interval (CI):0.80-1.60) for hCG versus GnRH agonist trigger, RR 1.23 (95% CI:0.92-1.65) for hCG versus dual trigger, RR 0.38 (95% CI:0.21-0.69) for hCG versus double trigger, RR 1.09 (95% CI:0.70-1.70) for GnRH agonist versus dual trigger and 0.34 (95% CI:0.17-0.67) for GnRH agonist versus double trigger and RR 0.31 (95%CI:0.16-0.60) for double versus dual trigger. Dual trigger demonstrated the highest SUCRA (85.1%), indicating superior efficacy for clinical pregnancy rates. For LBR, while connectivity was limited, the RR was 1.31 (95% CI: 1.00-1.70) for dual versus hCG trigger, and RR 1.60 (95% CI: 1.05-2.43) for dual versus GnRH agonist trigger. OHSS rates were significantly lower with the GnRH agonist compared to hCG trigger (RR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.19-1.75). There were no randomized controlled trials reporting OHSS rates with the use of dual or double trigger. No significant differences were observed in the number of oocytes retrieved, mature oocytes, or miscarriage rates among the trigger protocols.

Conclusion and relevance: The findings indicate that there is no evidence to suggest that using GnRH agonist, dual, or double protocols is superior to hCG trigger in improving clinical pregnancy rates. While live birth rates may benefit from dual trigger, results are limited by available RCTs. Larger, multicentre trials are needed for further evaluation of live birth rates and understanding of long-term outcomes.

在试管婴儿治疗中触发正常反应者的卵母细胞成熟:系统综述和网络荟萃分析。
目的比较hCG、GnRH激动剂、双触发器和双触发器对接受卵巢刺激和试管婴儿的预测正常反应者的疗效和安全性 设计:随机对照试验(RCT)的系统综述和网络荟萃分析:截至 2023 年 12 月,PubMed、MEDLINE、EMBASE、临床试验登记处和 Cochrane 系统综述数据库收录的 RCT:共纳入了12项高整合性RCT,包括1931名女性,比较了hCG触发与GnRH激动剂触发、双触发和双触发。统计分析采用 STATA 16 版本:主要结果包括临床妊娠率(CPR)、活产率(LBR)、卵母细胞数、成熟卵母细胞数、流产率和卵巢过度刺激综合征(OHSS)发生率:网络荟萃分析结果显示,hCG与GnRH激动剂触发的CPR相对风险(RR)为1.13(95%置信区间(CI):0.80-1.60),hCG与双重触发的CPR相对风险(RR)为1.23(95%CI:0.92-1.65),hCG与GnRH激动剂触发的CPR相对风险(RR)为0.38(95%CI:0.21-0.69)。GnRH激动剂与双触发的RR为1.09(95% CI:0.70-1.70),GnRH激动剂与双触发的RR为0.34(95% CI:0.17-0.67),双触发与双触发的RR为0.31(95%CI:0.16-0.60)。双触发的 SUCRA 最高(85.1%),表明其在临床妊娠率方面具有更好的疗效。对于 LBR,虽然连通性有限,但双触发与 hCG 触发相比,RR 为 1.31(95% CI:1.00-1.70);双触发与 GnRH 激动剂触发相比,RR 为 1.60(95% CI:1.05-2.43)。GnRH激动剂触发的OHSS率明显低于hCG触发(RR 0.56,95% CI:0.19-1.75)。没有随机对照试验报告使用双触发或双触发时的OHSS发生率。各种触发方案在取卵数量、成熟卵母细胞或流产率方面均无明显差异:研究结果表明,没有证据表明使用 GnRH 促效剂、双重或双重方案在提高临床妊娠率方面优于 hCG 触发方案。虽然活产率可能得益于双重触发,但现有的 RCT 结果有限。为了进一步评估活产率和了解长期结果,需要进行更大规模的多中心试验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Fertility and sterility
Fertility and sterility 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
6.00%
发文量
1446
审稿时长
31 days
期刊介绍: Fertility and Sterility® is an international journal for obstetricians, gynecologists, reproductive endocrinologists, urologists, basic scientists and others who treat and investigate problems of infertility and human reproductive disorders. The journal publishes juried original scientific articles in clinical and laboratory research relevant to reproductive endocrinology, urology, andrology, physiology, immunology, genetics, contraception, and menopause. Fertility and Sterility® encourages and supports meaningful basic and clinical research, and facilitates and promotes excellence in professional education, in the field of reproductive medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信