Cycle regimens for frozen-thawed embryo transfer.

BACKGROUND: Among subfertile couples undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART), pregnancy rates following frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) treatment cycles have historically been found to be lower than following embryo transfer undertaken two to five days following oocyte retrieval. Nevertheless, FET increases the cumulative pregnancy rate, reduces cost, is relatively simple to undertake and can be accomplished in a shorter time period than repeated in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles with fresh embryo transfer. FET is performed using different cycle regimens: spontaneous ovulatory (natural) cycles; cycles in which the endometrium is artificially prepared by oestrogen and progesterone hormones, commonly known as hormone therapy (HT) FET cycles; and cycles in which ovulation is induced by drugs (ovulation induction FET cycles). HT can be used with or without a gonadotrophin releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa). This is an update of a Cochrane review; the first version was published in 2008. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of natural cycle FET, HT cycle FET and ovulation induction cycle FET, and compare subtypes of these regimens. SEARCH METHODS: On 13 December 2016 we searched databases including Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL. Other search sources were trials registers and reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the various cycle regimens and different methods used to prepare the endometrium during FET. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were live birth rates and miscarriage. MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 RCTs comparing different cycle regimens for FET in 3815 women. The quality of the evidence was low or very low. The main limitations were failure to report important clinical outcomes, poor reporting of study methods and imprecision due to low event rates. We found no data specific to non-ovulatory women. 1. Natural cycle FET comparisons Natural cycle FET versus HT FETNo study reported live birth rates, miscarriage or ongoing pregnancy.There was no evidence of a difference in multiple pregnancy rates between women in natural cycles and those in HT FET cycle (odds ratio (OR) 2.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 68.14, 1 RCT, n = 21, very low-quality evidence). Natural cycle FET versus HT plus GnRHa suppressionThere was no evidence of a difference in rates of live birth (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.53, 1 RCT, n = 159, low-quality evidence) or multiple pregnancy (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.50, 1 RCT, n = 159, low-quality evidence) between women who had natural cycle FET and those who had HT FET cycles with GnRHa suppression. No study reported miscarriage or ongoing pregnancy. Natural cycle FET versus modified natural cycle FET (human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) trigger)There was no evidence of a difference in rates of live birth (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.93, 1 RCT, n = 60, very low-quality evidence) or miscarriage (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.13, 1 RCT, n = 168, very low-quality evidence) between women in natural cycles and women in natural cycles with HCG trigger. However, very low-quality evidence suggested that women in natural cycles (without HCG trigger) may have higher ongoing pregnancy rates (OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.03 to 5.76, 1 RCT, n = 168). There were no data on multiple pregnancy. 2. Modified natural cycle FET comparisons Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) versus HT FETThere was no evidence of a difference in rates of live birth (OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.05, 1 RCT, n = 959, low-quality evidence) or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.83, 1 RCT, n = 959, low-quality evidence) between women in modified natural cycles and those who received HT. There were no data on miscarriage or multiple pregnancy. Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) versus HT plus GnRHa suppressionThere was no evidence of a difference between the two groups in rates of live birth (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.87, 1 RCT, n = 236, low-quality evidence) or miscarriage (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.19, 1 RCT, n = 236, low-quality evidence) rates. There were no data on ongoing pregnancy or multiple pregnancy. 3. HT FET comparisons HT FET versus HT plus GnRHa suppressionHT alone was associated with a lower live birth rate than HT with GnRHa suppression (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.30, 1 RCT, n = 75, low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in either miscarriage (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.12, 6 RCTs, n = 991, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence) or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.72, 95% CI 0.61 to 4.85, 1 RCT, n = 106, very low-quality evidence).There were no data on multiple pregnancy. 4. Comparison of subtypes of ovulation induction FET Human menopausal gonadotrophin(HMG) versus clomiphene plus HMG HMG alone was associated with a higher live birth rate than clomiphene combined with HMG (OR 2.49, 95% CI 1.07 to 5.80, 1 RCT, n = 209, very low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in either miscarriage (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.35 to 5.09,1 RCT, n = 209, very low-quality evidence) or multiple pregnancy (OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.31 to 6.48, 1 RCT, n = 209, very low-quality evidence).There were no data on ongoing pregnancy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review did not find sufficient evidence to support the use of one cycle regimen in preference to another in preparation for FET in subfertile women with regular ovulatory cycles. The most common modalities for FET are natural cycle with or without HCG trigger or endometrial preparation with HT, with or without GnRHa suppression. We identified only four direct comparisons of these two modalities and there was insufficient evidence to support the use of either one in preference to the other.

Oral contraceptive pill, progestogen or oestrogen pretreatment for ovarian stimulation protocols for women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques.

BACKGROUND: Among subfertile women undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART), hormone pills given before ovarian stimulation may improve outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether pretreatment with the combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) or with a progestogen or oestrogen alone in ovarian stimulation protocols affects outcomes in subfertile couples undergoing ART. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases from inception to January 2017: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, The Cochrane Central Register Studies Online, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and registers of ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of hormonal pretreatment in women undergoing ART. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were live birth or ongoing pregnancy and pregnancy loss. MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 RCTs (4701 women) of pretreatment with COCPs, progestogens or oestrogens versus no pretreatment or alternative pretreatments, in gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist or antagonist cycles. Overall, evidence quality ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations were risk of bias and imprecision. Most studies did not describe their methods in adequate detail. Combined oral contraceptive pill versus no pretreatmentWith antagonist cycles in both groups the rate of live birth or ongoing pregnancy was lower in the pretreatment group (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.95; 6 RCTs; 1335 women; I2 = 0%; moderate quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of pregnancy loss (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.26; 5 RCTs; 868 women; I2 = 0%; moderate quality evidence), multiple pregnancy (OR 2.21, 95% CI 0.53 to 9.26; 2 RCTs; 125 women; I2 = 0%; low quality evidence), ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS; OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.40; 2 RCTs; 642 women; I2 = 0%, low quality evidence), or ovarian cyst formation (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.75; 1 RCT; 64 women; very low quality evidence).In COCP plus antagonist cycles versus no pretreatment in agonist cycles, there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.25; 4 RCTs; 724 women; I2 = 0%; moderate quality evidence), multiple pregnancy (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.19; 4 RCTs; 546 women; I2 = 0%; moderate quality evidence), or OHSS (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.96; 2 RCTs; 290 women, I2 = 0%), but there were fewer pregnancy losses in the pretreatment group (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.72; 5 RCTs; 780 women; I2 = 0%; moderate quality evidence). There were no data suitable for analysis on ovarian cyst formation.One small study comparing COCP versus no pretreatment in agonist cycles showed no clear difference between the groups for any of the reported outcomes. Progestogen versus no pretreatmentAll studies used the same protocol (antagonist, agonist or gonadotrophins) in both groups. There was insufficient evidence to determine any differences in rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (agonist: OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.65; 2 RCTs; 222 women; I2 = 24%; low quality evidence; antagonist: OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.18 to 2.54; 1 RCT; 47 women; low quality evidence; gonadotrophins: OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.09 to 4.23; 1 RCT; 42 women; very low quality evidence), pregnancy loss (agonist: OR 2.26, 95% CI 0.67 to 7.55; 2 RCTs; 222 women; I2 = 0%; low quality evidence; antagonist: OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.09; 1 RCT; 47 women; low quality evidence; gonadotrophins: OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 17.12; 1 RCT; 42 women; very low quality evidence) or multiple pregnancy (agonist: no data available; antagonist: OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.06 to 17.76; 1 RCT; 47 women; low quality evidence; gonadotrophins: no data available). Three studies, all using agonist cycles, reported ovarian cyst formation: rates were lower in the pretreatment group (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.32; 374 women; I2 = 1%; moderate quality evidence). There were no data on OHSS. Oestrogen versus no pretreatmentIn antagonist or agonist cycles, there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (antagonist versus antagonist: OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.17; 2 RCTs; 502 women; I2 = 0%; low quality evidence; antagonist versus agonist: OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.50; 2 RCTs; 242 women; I2 = 0%; very low quality evidence), pregnancy loss (antagonist versus antagonist: OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.47; 1 RCT; 49 women; very low quality evidence; antagonist versus agonist: OR 1.59, 95% CI 0.62 to 4.06; 1 RCT; 220 women; very low quality evidence), multiple pregnancy (antagonist versus antagonist: no data available; antagonist versus agonist: OR 2.24, 95% CI 0.09 to 53.59; 1 RCT; 22 women; very low quality evidence) or OHSS (antagonist versus antagonist: no data available; antagonist versus agonist: OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.25 to 9.42; 1 RCT; 220 women). Ovarian cyst formation was not reported. Head-to-head comparisonsCOCP was compared with progestogen (1 RCT, 44 women), and with oestrogen (2 RCTs, 146 women), and progestogen was compared with oestrogen (1 RCT, 48 women), with an antagonist cycle in both groups. COCP in an agonist cycle was compared with oestrogen in an antagonist cycle (1 RCT, 25 women). Data were scant but there was no clear evidence that any of the groups differed in rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy, pregnancy loss or other adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Among women undergoing ovarian stimulation in antagonist protocols, COCP pretreatment was associated with a lower rate of live birth or ongoing pregnancy than no pretreatment. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy were influenced by pretreatment with progestogens or oestrogens, or by COCP pretreatment using other stimulation protocols. Findings on adverse events were inconclusive, except that progesterone pretreatment may reduce the risk of ovarian cysts in agonist cycles, and COCP in antagonist cycles may reduce the risk of pregnancy loss compared with no pretreatment in agonist cycles.

Local oestrogen for vaginal atrophy in postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: Vaginal atrophy is a frequent complaint of postmenopausal women; symptoms include vaginal dryness, itching, discomfort and painful intercourse. Systemic treatment for these symptoms in the form of oral hormone replacement therapy is not always necessary. An alternative choice is oestrogenic preparations administered vaginally (in the form of creams, pessaries, tablets and the oestradiol-releasing ring). This is an update of a Chochrane systematic review; the original version was first published in October 2006. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to compare the efficacy and safety of intra-vaginal oestrogenic preparations in relieving the symptoms of vaginal atrophy in postmenopausal women. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases and trials registers to April 2016: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Register of trials, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016 issue 4), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, DARE, the Web of Knowledge, OpenGrey, LILACS, PubMed and reference lists of articles. We also contacted experts and researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: The inclusion criteria were randomised comparisons of oestrogenic preparations administered intravaginally in postmenopausal women for at least 12 weeks for the treatment of symptoms resulting from vaginal atrophy or vaginitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and extracted the data. The primary review outcomes were improvement in symptoms (participant-assessed), and the adverse event endometrial thickness. Secondary outcomes were improvement in symptoms (clinician-assessed), other adverse events (breast disorders e.g. breast pain, enlargement or engorgement, total adverse events, excluding breast disorders) and adherence to treatment. We combined data to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) (dichotomous outcomes) and mean differences (MDs) (continuous outcomes) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included 30 RCTs (6235 women) comparing different intra-vaginal oestrogenic preparations with each other and with placebo. The evidence was low to moderate quality; limitations were poor reporting of study methods and serious imprecision (effect estimates with wide confidence intervals)1. Oestrogen ring versus other regimensOther regimens included oestrogen cream, oestrogen tablets and placebo. There was no evidence of a difference in improvement in symptoms (participant assessment) either between oestrogen ring and oestrogen cream (odds ratio (OR) 1.33, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.19, two RCTs, n = 341, I(2) = 0%, low-quality evidence) or between oestrogen ring and oestrogen tablets (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.15, three RCTs, n = 567, I(2) = 0%, low-quality evidence). However, a higher proportion of women reported improvement in symptoms following treatment with oestrogen ring compared with placebo (OR 12.67, 95% CI 3.23 to 49.66, one RCT, n = 67). With respect to endometrial thickness, a higher proportion of women who received oestrogen cream showed evidence of increase in endometrial thickness compared to those who were treated with oestrogen ring (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.94, two RCTs, n = 273; I(2) = 0%, low-quality evidence). This may have been due to the higher doses of cream used. 2. Oestrogen tablets versus other regimensOther regimens in this comparison included oestrogen cream, and placebo. There was no evidence of a difference in the proportions of women who reported improvement in symptoms between oestrogen tablets and oestrogen cream (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.01, two RCTs, n = 208, I(2) = 0% low-quality evidence). A higher proportion of women who were treated with oestrogen tablets reported improvement in symptoms compared to those who received placebo using a fixed-effect model (OR 12.47, 95% CI 9.81 to 15.84, two RCTs, n = 1638, I(2) = 83%, low-quality evidence); however, using a random-effect model did not demonstrate any evidence of a difference in the proportions of women who reported improvement between the two treatment groups (OR 5.80, 95% CI 0.88 to 38.29). There was no evidence of a difference in the proportions of women with increase in endometrial thickness between oestrogen tablets and oestrogen cream (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.60, two RCTs, n = 151, I(2) = 0%, low-quality evidence).3. Oestrogen cream versus other regimensOther regimens identified in this comparison included isoflavone gel and placebo. There was no evidence of a difference in the proportions of women with improvement in symptoms between oestrogen cream and isoflavone gel (OR 2.08, 95% CI 0.08 to 53.76, one RCT, n = 50, low-quality evidence). However, there was evidence of a difference in the proportions of women with improvement in symptoms between oestrogen cream and placebo with more women who received oestrogen cream reporting improvement in symptoms compared to those who were treated with placebo (OR 4.10, 95% CI 1.88 to 8.93, two RCTs, n = 198, I(2) = 50%, low-quality evidence). None of the included studies in this comparison reported data on endometrial thickness. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of a difference in efficacy between the various intravaginal oestrogenic preparations when compared with each other. However, there was low-quality evidence that intra-vaginal oestrogenic preparations improve the symptoms of vaginal atrophy in postmenopausal women when compared to placebo. There was low-quality evidence that oestrogen cream may be associated with an increase in endometrial thickness compared to oestrogen ring; this may have been due to the higher doses of cream used. However there was no evidence of a difference in the overall body of evidence in adverse events between the various oestrogenic preparations compared with each other or with placebo.

Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted reproductive technology.

BACKGROUND: Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists can be used to prevent a luteinizing hormone (LH) surge during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) without the hypo-oestrogenic side-effects, flare-up, or long down-regulation period associated with agonists. The antagonists directly and rapidly inhibit gonadotrophin release within several hours through competitive binding to pituitary GnRH receptors. This property allows their use at any time during the follicular phase. Several different regimens have been described including multiple-dose fixed (0.25 mg daily from day six to seven of stimulation), multiple-dose flexible (0.25 mg daily when leading follicle is 14 to 15 mm), and single-dose (single administration of 3 mg on day 7 to 8 of stimulation) protocols, with or without the addition of an oral contraceptive pill. Further, women receiving antagonists have been shown to have a lower incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Assuming comparable clinical outcomes for the antagonist and agonist protocols, these benefits would justify a change from the standard long agonist protocol to antagonist regimens. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2001, and previously updated in 2006 and 2011. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists compared with the standard long protocol of GnRH agonists for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in assisted conception cycles. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (searched from inception to May 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, inception to 28 April 2015), Ovid MEDLINE (1966 to 28 April 2015), EMBASE (1980 to 28 April 2015), PsycINFO (1806 to 28 April 2015), CINAHL (to 28 April 2015) and trial registers to 28 April 2015, and handsearched bibliographies of relevant publications and reviews, and abstracts of major scientific meetings, for example the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM). We contacted the authors of eligible studies for missing or unpublished data. The evidence is current to 28 April 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two review authors independently screened the relevant citations for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist protocols in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted the data. The primary review outcomes were live birth and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Other adverse effects (miscarriage and cycle cancellation) were secondary outcomes. We combined data to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each comparison using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included 73 RCTs, with 12,212 participants, comparing GnRH antagonist to long-course GnRH agonist protocols. The quality of the evidence was moderate: limitations were poor reporting of study methods.Live birthThere was no conclusive evidence of a difference in live birth rate between GnRH antagonist and long course GnRH agonist (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.23; 12 RCTs, n = 2303, I(2)= 27%, moderate quality evidence). The evidence suggested that if the chance of live birth following GnRH agonist is assumed to be 29%, the chance following GnRH antagonist would be between 25% and 33%.OHSSGnRH antagonist was associated with lower incidence of any grade of OHSS than GnRH agonist (OR 0.61, 95% C 0.51 to 0.72; 36 RCTs, n = 7944, I(2) = 31%, moderate quality evidence). The evidence suggested that if the risk of OHSS following GnRH agonist is assumed to be 11%, the risk following GnRH antagonist would be between 6% and 9%.Other adverse effectsThere was no evidence of a difference in miscarriage rate per woman randomised between GnRH antagonist group and GnRH agonist group (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.30; 33 RCTs, n = 7022, I(2) = 0%, moderate quality evidence).With respect to cycle cancellation, GnRH antagonist was associated with a lower incidence of cycle cancellation due to high risk of OHSS (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.69; 19 RCTs, n = 4256, I(2) = 0%). However cycle cancellation due to poor ovarian response was higher in women who received GnRH antagonist than those who were treated with GnRH agonist (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.65; 25 RCTs, n = 5230, I(2) = 68%; moderate quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate quality evidence that the use of GnRH antagonist compared with long-course GnRH agonist protocols is associated with a substantial reduction in OHSS without reducing the likelihood of achieving live birth.