{"title":"比较GnRH激动剂和GnRH拮抗剂卵巢刺激后子宫内膜异位症妇女的ART结果:一项系统综述。","authors":"Kevin K W Kuan, Sean Omoseni, Javier A Tello","doi":"10.1177/20420188231173325","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Endometriosis is an oestrogen-dependent disease that can cause subfertility in women who may require assisted reproductive technology (ART) to achieve their pregnancy goals.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this study was to compare ART outcomes in women with endometriosis following the long GnRH-agonist controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) protocol with those taking the GnRH-antagonist COS protocol.</p><p><strong>Data sources and methods: </strong>MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science were systematically searched in June 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing the long GnRH-agonist COS protocol and the GnRH-antagonist COS protocol in women with all stages/subtypes of endometriosis were included. Data were synthesized into comprehensive tables for systematic review. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) checklists were used for the risk of bias assessment of non-randomized studies and randomized studies, and all the included studies were deemed to have acceptable quality.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>Eight studies (one RCT and seven observational) with 2695 patients (2761 cycles) were included. Most studies generally reported non-significant differences in clinical pregnancy or live birth rates regardless of the COS protocol used. However, the GnRH-agonist protocol may yield a higher total number of oocytes retrieved, especially mature oocytes. Conversely, the GnRH-antagonist protocol required a shorter COS duration and lower gonadotrophin dose. Adverse outcomes, such as rates of cycle cancellation and miscarriage, were similar between both COS protocols.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both the long GnRH-agonist and GnRH-antagonist COS protocols generally yield similar pregnancy outcomes. However, the long GnRH-agonist protocol may be associated with a higher cumulative pregnancy rate due to the higher number of retrieved oocytes available for cryopreservation. The underlying mechanisms of the two COS protocols on the female reproductive tract remain unclear. Clinicians should consider treatment costs, stage/subtype of endometriosis and pregnancy goals of their patients when selecting a GnRH analogue for COS. A well-powered RCT is needed to minimize the risk of bias and compare the risk for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>This review was prospectively registered at PROSPERO under Registration No. CRD42022327604.</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10331103/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing ART outcomes in women with endometriosis after GnRH agonist <i>versus</i> GnRH antagonist ovarian stimulation: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Kevin K W Kuan, Sean Omoseni, Javier A Tello\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20420188231173325\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Endometriosis is an oestrogen-dependent disease that can cause subfertility in women who may require assisted reproductive technology (ART) to achieve their pregnancy goals.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this study was to compare ART outcomes in women with endometriosis following the long GnRH-agonist controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) protocol with those taking the GnRH-antagonist COS protocol.</p><p><strong>Data sources and methods: </strong>MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science were systematically searched in June 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing the long GnRH-agonist COS protocol and the GnRH-antagonist COS protocol in women with all stages/subtypes of endometriosis were included. Data were synthesized into comprehensive tables for systematic review. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) checklists were used for the risk of bias assessment of non-randomized studies and randomized studies, and all the included studies were deemed to have acceptable quality.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>Eight studies (one RCT and seven observational) with 2695 patients (2761 cycles) were included. Most studies generally reported non-significant differences in clinical pregnancy or live birth rates regardless of the COS protocol used. However, the GnRH-agonist protocol may yield a higher total number of oocytes retrieved, especially mature oocytes. Conversely, the GnRH-antagonist protocol required a shorter COS duration and lower gonadotrophin dose. Adverse outcomes, such as rates of cycle cancellation and miscarriage, were similar between both COS protocols.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both the long GnRH-agonist and GnRH-antagonist COS protocols generally yield similar pregnancy outcomes. However, the long GnRH-agonist protocol may be associated with a higher cumulative pregnancy rate due to the higher number of retrieved oocytes available for cryopreservation. The underlying mechanisms of the two COS protocols on the female reproductive tract remain unclear. Clinicians should consider treatment costs, stage/subtype of endometriosis and pregnancy goals of their patients when selecting a GnRH analogue for COS. A well-powered RCT is needed to minimize the risk of bias and compare the risk for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>This review was prospectively registered at PROSPERO under Registration No. CRD42022327604.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":3,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10331103/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20420188231173325\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20420188231173325","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
背景:子宫内膜异位症是一种雌激素依赖性疾病,可导致需要辅助生殖技术(ART)来实现妊娠目标的妇女生育能力低下。目的:本研究的目的是比较长期使用gnrh激动剂控制卵巢刺激(COS)方案和使用gnrh拮抗剂控制卵巢刺激(COS)方案的子宫内膜异位症妇女的ART结果。数据来源和方法:2022年6月系统检索MEDLINE、Embase和Web of Science。随机对照试验(RCTs)和观察性研究比较了长gnrh激动剂COS方案和gnrh拮抗剂COS方案在所有阶段/亚型子宫内膜异位症妇女中的应用。将数据合成综合表进行系统评价。苏格兰校际指南网络(SIGN)检查表用于非随机研究和随机研究的偏倚风险评估,所有纳入的研究都被认为具有可接受的质量。主要结果:纳入8项研究(1项RCT和7项观察性研究),共2695例患者(2761个周期)。大多数研究普遍报道,无论使用何种COS方案,临床妊娠率或活产率均无显著差异。然而,gnrh激动剂方案可能产生更高的卵母细胞总数,特别是成熟卵母细胞。相反,gnrh拮抗剂方案需要更短的COS持续时间和更低的促性腺激素剂量。不良结果,如周期取消率和流产率,在两种COS方案之间相似。结论:长gnrh激动剂和gnrh拮抗剂COS方案通常产生相似的妊娠结局。然而,长gnrh激动剂方案可能与较高的累积妊娠率相关,因为可用于冷冻保存的卵母细胞数量较多。两种COS方案对女性生殖道的潜在机制尚不清楚。临床医生在选择GnRH类似物治疗COS时应考虑治疗费用、子宫内膜异位症的分期/亚型和患者的妊娠目标。需要一项功能完善的随机对照试验来降低偏倚风险,并比较卵巢过度刺激综合征的风险。注册:本综述在普洛斯彼罗前瞻性注册,注册号为。CRD42022327604。
Comparing ART outcomes in women with endometriosis after GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist ovarian stimulation: a systematic review.
Background: Endometriosis is an oestrogen-dependent disease that can cause subfertility in women who may require assisted reproductive technology (ART) to achieve their pregnancy goals.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare ART outcomes in women with endometriosis following the long GnRH-agonist controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) protocol with those taking the GnRH-antagonist COS protocol.
Data sources and methods: MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science were systematically searched in June 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing the long GnRH-agonist COS protocol and the GnRH-antagonist COS protocol in women with all stages/subtypes of endometriosis were included. Data were synthesized into comprehensive tables for systematic review. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) checklists were used for the risk of bias assessment of non-randomized studies and randomized studies, and all the included studies were deemed to have acceptable quality.
Main results: Eight studies (one RCT and seven observational) with 2695 patients (2761 cycles) were included. Most studies generally reported non-significant differences in clinical pregnancy or live birth rates regardless of the COS protocol used. However, the GnRH-agonist protocol may yield a higher total number of oocytes retrieved, especially mature oocytes. Conversely, the GnRH-antagonist protocol required a shorter COS duration and lower gonadotrophin dose. Adverse outcomes, such as rates of cycle cancellation and miscarriage, were similar between both COS protocols.
Conclusion: Both the long GnRH-agonist and GnRH-antagonist COS protocols generally yield similar pregnancy outcomes. However, the long GnRH-agonist protocol may be associated with a higher cumulative pregnancy rate due to the higher number of retrieved oocytes available for cryopreservation. The underlying mechanisms of the two COS protocols on the female reproductive tract remain unclear. Clinicians should consider treatment costs, stage/subtype of endometriosis and pregnancy goals of their patients when selecting a GnRH analogue for COS. A well-powered RCT is needed to minimize the risk of bias and compare the risk for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.
Registration: This review was prospectively registered at PROSPERO under Registration No. CRD42022327604.