IF 8.8 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Nienke S Weiss, Elena B Kostova, Ben Willem J Mol, Madelon van Wely
{"title":"Gonadotropins for ovulation induction in women with polycystic ovary syndrome.","authors":"Nienke S Weiss, Elena B Kostova, Ben Willem J Mol, Madelon van Wely","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD010290.pub4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Ovulation induction with follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) is a second-line treatment in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) who do not ovulate or conceive on clomiphene citrate or letrozole, though induction protocols and types of gonadotropins used vary greatly.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the effectiveness and safety of gonadotropins as a second-line treatment for ovulation induction in women with PCOS who do not ovulate or conceive after clomiphene citrate or letrozole.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>In March 2024, we searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO. We checked references of all relevant studies. We had no language or date restrictions.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting data on clinical outcomes in women with PCOS who did not ovulate or conceive on clomiphene citrate or letrozole, and were undergoing ovulation induction with urinary-derived gonadotropins, including urofollitropin in purified FSH (uFSH) or highly purified FSH (HP-FSH) form, human menopausal gonadotropin (HMG) and highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin (HP-HMG), or recombinant FSH (rFSH) were eligible. We included trials reporting on ovulation induction followed by intercourse or intrauterine insemination. We excluded studies that described co-treatment with clomiphene citrate, metformin, luteinising hormone, or letrozole.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>We implemented the core outcome set for infertility. Our critical outcomes were live birth rate and multiple pregnancy rate per woman. Important outcomes were clinical pregnancy, pregnancy loss, incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) per woman, total gonadotropin dose, total duration of stimulation per woman, gestational age at birth, birthweight, neonatal mortality, and major congenital anomaly.</p><p><strong>Risk of bias: </strong>We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess bias in the included studies.</p><p><strong>Synthesis methods: </strong>Where meta-analysis was possible, we combined data using a fixed-effect model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference. We summarised the overall certainty of evidence for the main outcomes using GRADE criteria.</p><p><strong>Included studies: </strong>We included 15 studies with 2348 women. Ten trials compared rFSH with urinary-derived gonadotropins (one compared rFSH with human menopausal gonadotropin (HMG), and nine compared rFSH with urinary FSH). Three trials compared HMG with purified FSH (uFSH). One trial compared HP-FSH with purified FSH (uFSH) and one trial compared gonadotropins with continued clomiphene citrate.</p><p><strong>Synthesis of results: </strong>Recombinant FSH (rFSH) versus urinary-derived gonadotropins There may be little or no difference in the birth rate between rFSH and urinary-derived gonadotropins (RR 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.78; 5 RCTs, 505 participants; low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the observed average live birth per woman who used urinary-derived gonadotropins is 16%, the chance of live birth with rFSH is between 13% and 28%. There may be little or no difference between groups in multiple pregnancy (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.61; 8 RCTs, 1368 participants; low-certainty evidence), clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.27; 8 RCTs, 1330 participants; low-certainty evidence), or miscarriage rate (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.04; 7 RCTs, 970 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether rFSH reduces ectopic pregnancy (RR 2.81, 95% CI 0.12 to 67.90; 1 RCT, 151 participants; very-low certainty evidence) or the incidence of OHSS (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.65; 10 RCTs, 1565 participants; very low-certainty evidence) when compared to urinary-derived gonadotropins. Human menopausal gonadotropin (HMG) versus purified urinary FSH (uFSH) When compared to uFSH, we are uncertain whether HMG improves live birth rate (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.76; 2 RCTs, 79 participants), or reduces multiple pregnancy (RR 6.56, 95% CI 0.28 to 152.45; 3 RCTs, 102 participants). We are also uncertain whether HMG improves clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.59; 3 RCTs, 102 participants), reduces miscarriage rate (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.97; 2 RCTs, 98 participants), or reduces the incidence of OHSS (RR 7.07, 95% CI 0.42 to 117.81; 2 RCTs, 53 participants) when compared to uFSH. No trials reported on ectopic pregnancy. The certainty of the evidence was very low for all outcomes. Gonadotropins versus continued clomiphene citrate Gonadotropins (FSH) probably result in more live births than continued clomiphene citrate (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.46; 1 RCT, 661 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a live birth rate of 41% with continued clomiphene citrate, the live birth rate with gonadotropins was between 43% and 60%. There may be little or no difference in multiple pregnancy between treatments (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.44; 1 RCT, 661 participants; low-certainty evidence). Gonadotropins probably result in more clinical pregnancies than continued clomiphene citrate (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.52; 1 RCT, 661 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may result in more miscarriages (RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 4.47; 1 RCT, 661 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if there is a difference in ectopic pregnancy between the groups (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.77; 1 RCT, 661 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the women developed OHSS. The main limitations were imprecision, inconsistency, and indirectness.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>There may be little or no difference in live birth, multiple pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, or miscarriage rates between rFSH and uFSH in women with PCOS. For HMG versus uFSH, we are uncertain whether one or the other improves or lowers rates of live birth, multiple pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, or miscarriage. We are uncertain whether any of the interventions reduce ectopic pregnancy or the incidence of OHSS. In women with clomiphene citrate failure, gonadotropins (FSH) probably result in more live births and clinical pregnancies than continued clomiphene citrate without increasing multiple pregnancies. Gonadotropins may increase the miscarriage rate per woman. We are uncertain if gonadotropins reduce ectopic pregnancy. None of the women developed OHSS.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>Protocol (2012) https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010290 Review (2015) https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010290.pub2/full Update (2019) https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010290.pub3.</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"4 ","pages":"CD010290"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11975188/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010290.pub4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

依据:使用卵泡刺激素(FSH)诱导排卵是枸橼酸氯米芬或来曲唑治疗后不排卵或不受孕的多囊卵巢综合征(PCOS)女性患者的二线治疗方法,但诱导方案和使用的促性腺激素类型差异很大:目的:比较促性腺激素作为枸橼酸克罗米芬或来曲唑治疗后不排卵或不受孕的多囊卵巢综合征妇女促排卵二线治疗的有效性和安全性:2024 年 3 月,我们检索了 Cochrane 妇科和不孕症组对照试验专门登记册、CENTRAL、MEDLINE、Embase 和 PsycINFO。我们检查了所有相关研究的参考文献。我们没有语言或日期限制:所有随机对照试验(RCT)均报告了枸橼酸氯米芬或来曲唑治疗后不排卵或不受孕的多囊卵巢综合症女性患者的临床结果数据,这些女性患者正在接受尿源性促性腺激素促排卵治疗、包括纯化 FSH(uFSH)或高度纯化 FSH(HP-FSH)形式的尿促性腺激素、人绝经期促性腺激素(HMG)和高度纯化人绝经期促性腺激素(HP-HMG)或重组 FSH(rFSH)。我们纳入了报告诱导排卵后同房或宫腔内人工授精的试验。我们排除了使用枸橼酸氯米芬、二甲双胍、黄体生成素或来曲唑联合治疗的研究:我们采用了不孕症核心结果集。我们的关键结果是每名妇女的活产率和多胎妊娠率。重要结果包括临床妊娠、妊娠失败、每名妇女卵巢过度刺激综合征(OHSS)发生率、促性腺激素总剂量、每名妇女刺激总持续时间、出生胎龄、出生体重、新生儿死亡率和主要先天性异常:我们使用 Cochrane RoB 1 工具来评估纳入研究的偏倚性:在可能进行荟萃分析的情况下,我们使用固定效应模型合并数据,计算风险比(RR)或平均差异。我们采用 GRADE 标准总结了主要结果的总体证据确定性:我们纳入了 15 项研究,共有 2348 名女性参与。10项试验比较了rFSH和尿源性促性腺激素(1项试验比较了rFSH和人绝经期促性腺激素(HMG),9项试验比较了rFSH和尿源性FSH)。三项试验比较了 HMG 和纯化 FSH(uFSH)。一项试验比较了HP-FSH和纯化的FSH(uFSH),一项试验比较了促性腺激素和持续的枸橼酸氯米芬:重组 FSH(rFSH)与尿源性促性腺激素 rFSH 与尿源性促性腺激素在出生率方面可能几乎没有差异(RR 1.21,95% 置信区间(CI)0.83-1.78;5 项 RCT,505 名参与者;低确定性证据)。这表明,如果观察到每位使用尿源性促性腺激素的妇女平均活产率为 16%,那么使用 rFSH 的活产几率为 13% 至 28%。在多胎妊娠率(RR 0.86,95% CI 0.46 至 1.61;8 项 RCT,1368 名参与者;低确定性证据)、临床妊娠率(RR 1.05,95% CI 0.88 至 1.27;8 项 RCT,1330 名参与者;低确定性证据)或流产率(RR 1.20,95% CI 0.71 至 2.04;7 项 RCT,970 名参与者;低确定性证据)方面,组间差异可能很小或没有差异。与尿源性促性腺激素相比,我们尚不确定 rFSH 是否会减少异位妊娠(RR 2.81,95% CI 0.12 至 67.90;1 项 RCT,151 名参与者;极低确定性证据)或 OHSS 的发生率(RR 1.48,95% CI 0.82 至 2.65;10 项 RCT,1565 名参与者;极低确定性证据)。人绝经期促性腺激素(HMG)与纯化的尿源性 FSH(uFSH)相比,我们不确定 HMG 是否能提高活产率(RR 1.44,95% CI 0.55 至 3.76;2 项 RCT,79 名参与者)或减少多胎妊娠(RR 6.56,95% CI 0.28 至 152.45;3 项 RCT,102 名参与者)。我们也不确定与 uFSH 相比,HMG 是否能提高临床妊娠率(RR 1.31,95% CI 0.66 至 2.59;3 项 RCT,102 名参与者)、降低流产率(RR 0.33,95% CI 0.06 至 1.97;2 项 RCT,98 名参与者)或减少 OHSS 的发生率(RR 7.07,95% CI 0.42 至 117.81;2 项 RCT,53 名参与者)。没有试验报告了异位妊娠的情况。所有结果的证据确定性都很低。促性腺激素与持续枸橼酸氯米芬促性腺激素(FSH)可能比持续枸橼酸氯米芬促性腺激素(RR 1.24,95% CI 1.05 至 1.46;1 项 RCT,661 名参与者;中等确定性证据)带来更多的活产。这表明,继续使用枸橼酸氯米芬的妇女的活产率为 41%,而使用促性腺激素的妇女的活产率为 43% 至 60%。不同治疗方法在多胎妊娠方面的差异可能很小或没有差异(RR 0.89,95% CI 0.33 至 2.44;1 项 RCT,661 名参与者;低确定性证据)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Gonadotropins for ovulation induction in women with polycystic ovary syndrome.

Rationale: Ovulation induction with follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) is a second-line treatment in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) who do not ovulate or conceive on clomiphene citrate or letrozole, though induction protocols and types of gonadotropins used vary greatly.

Objectives: To compare the effectiveness and safety of gonadotropins as a second-line treatment for ovulation induction in women with PCOS who do not ovulate or conceive after clomiphene citrate or letrozole.

Search methods: In March 2024, we searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO. We checked references of all relevant studies. We had no language or date restrictions.

Eligibility criteria: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting data on clinical outcomes in women with PCOS who did not ovulate or conceive on clomiphene citrate or letrozole, and were undergoing ovulation induction with urinary-derived gonadotropins, including urofollitropin in purified FSH (uFSH) or highly purified FSH (HP-FSH) form, human menopausal gonadotropin (HMG) and highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin (HP-HMG), or recombinant FSH (rFSH) were eligible. We included trials reporting on ovulation induction followed by intercourse or intrauterine insemination. We excluded studies that described co-treatment with clomiphene citrate, metformin, luteinising hormone, or letrozole.

Outcomes: We implemented the core outcome set for infertility. Our critical outcomes were live birth rate and multiple pregnancy rate per woman. Important outcomes were clinical pregnancy, pregnancy loss, incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) per woman, total gonadotropin dose, total duration of stimulation per woman, gestational age at birth, birthweight, neonatal mortality, and major congenital anomaly.

Risk of bias: We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess bias in the included studies.

Synthesis methods: Where meta-analysis was possible, we combined data using a fixed-effect model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference. We summarised the overall certainty of evidence for the main outcomes using GRADE criteria.

Included studies: We included 15 studies with 2348 women. Ten trials compared rFSH with urinary-derived gonadotropins (one compared rFSH with human menopausal gonadotropin (HMG), and nine compared rFSH with urinary FSH). Three trials compared HMG with purified FSH (uFSH). One trial compared HP-FSH with purified FSH (uFSH) and one trial compared gonadotropins with continued clomiphene citrate.

Synthesis of results: Recombinant FSH (rFSH) versus urinary-derived gonadotropins There may be little or no difference in the birth rate between rFSH and urinary-derived gonadotropins (RR 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.78; 5 RCTs, 505 participants; low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the observed average live birth per woman who used urinary-derived gonadotropins is 16%, the chance of live birth with rFSH is between 13% and 28%. There may be little or no difference between groups in multiple pregnancy (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.61; 8 RCTs, 1368 participants; low-certainty evidence), clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.27; 8 RCTs, 1330 participants; low-certainty evidence), or miscarriage rate (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.04; 7 RCTs, 970 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether rFSH reduces ectopic pregnancy (RR 2.81, 95% CI 0.12 to 67.90; 1 RCT, 151 participants; very-low certainty evidence) or the incidence of OHSS (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.65; 10 RCTs, 1565 participants; very low-certainty evidence) when compared to urinary-derived gonadotropins. Human menopausal gonadotropin (HMG) versus purified urinary FSH (uFSH) When compared to uFSH, we are uncertain whether HMG improves live birth rate (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.76; 2 RCTs, 79 participants), or reduces multiple pregnancy (RR 6.56, 95% CI 0.28 to 152.45; 3 RCTs, 102 participants). We are also uncertain whether HMG improves clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.59; 3 RCTs, 102 participants), reduces miscarriage rate (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.97; 2 RCTs, 98 participants), or reduces the incidence of OHSS (RR 7.07, 95% CI 0.42 to 117.81; 2 RCTs, 53 participants) when compared to uFSH. No trials reported on ectopic pregnancy. The certainty of the evidence was very low for all outcomes. Gonadotropins versus continued clomiphene citrate Gonadotropins (FSH) probably result in more live births than continued clomiphene citrate (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.46; 1 RCT, 661 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a live birth rate of 41% with continued clomiphene citrate, the live birth rate with gonadotropins was between 43% and 60%. There may be little or no difference in multiple pregnancy between treatments (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.44; 1 RCT, 661 participants; low-certainty evidence). Gonadotropins probably result in more clinical pregnancies than continued clomiphene citrate (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.52; 1 RCT, 661 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may result in more miscarriages (RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 4.47; 1 RCT, 661 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if there is a difference in ectopic pregnancy between the groups (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.77; 1 RCT, 661 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the women developed OHSS. The main limitations were imprecision, inconsistency, and indirectness.

Authors' conclusions: There may be little or no difference in live birth, multiple pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, or miscarriage rates between rFSH and uFSH in women with PCOS. For HMG versus uFSH, we are uncertain whether one or the other improves or lowers rates of live birth, multiple pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, or miscarriage. We are uncertain whether any of the interventions reduce ectopic pregnancy or the incidence of OHSS. In women with clomiphene citrate failure, gonadotropins (FSH) probably result in more live births and clinical pregnancies than continued clomiphene citrate without increasing multiple pregnancies. Gonadotropins may increase the miscarriage rate per woman. We are uncertain if gonadotropins reduce ectopic pregnancy. None of the women developed OHSS.

Funding: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding.

Registration: Protocol (2012) https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010290 Review (2015) https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010290.pub2/full Update (2019) https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010290.pub3.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
2.40%
发文量
173
审稿时长
1-2 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) stands as the premier database for systematic reviews in healthcare. It comprises Cochrane Reviews, along with protocols for these reviews, editorials, and supplements. Owned and operated by Cochrane, a worldwide independent network of healthcare stakeholders, the CDSR (ISSN 1469-493X) encompasses a broad spectrum of health-related topics, including health services.
×
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