The influence of different growth hormone addition protocols to poor ovarian responders on clinical outcomes in controlled ovary stimulation cycles: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Growth hormone (GH) is used as an adjuvant therapy in in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET) for poor ovarian responders, but findings for its effects on outcomes of IVF have been conflicting. The aim of the study was to compare IVF-ET outcomes among women with poor ovarian responders, and find which subgroup can benefit from the GH addition. METHODS: We searched the databases, using the terms "growth hormone," "GH," "IVF," "in vitro fertilization." Randomized controlled trials (RCT) were included if they assessed pregnancy rate, live birth rate, collected oocytes, fertilization rate, and implantation rate. Extracted the data from the corresponding articles, Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model, or fixed-effects model was used. Eleven studies were included. RESULTS: Clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.23-2.22), live birth rate (RR1.73, 1.25-2.40), collected oocytes number (SMD 1.09, 95% CI 0.54-1.64), MII oocytes number (SMD 1.48, 0.84-2.13), and E2 on human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) day (SMD 1.03, 0.18-1.89) were significantly increased in the GH group. The cancelled cycles rate (RR 0.65, 0.45-0.94) and the dose of gonadotropin (Gn) (SMD -0.83, -1.47, -0.19) were significantly lower in patients who received GH. Subgroup analysis indicated that the GH addition with Gn significantly increased the clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.76, 1.25-2.48) and the live birth rate (RR 1.91, 1.29-2.83). CONCLUSION: The GH addition can significantly improve the clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate. Furthermore, the GH addition time and collocation of medications may affect the pregnancy outcome.

Estrogen supplementation to progesterone as luteal phase support in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Meta-analyses have found conflicting results with respect to the use of progesterone or progesterone plus estrogen as luteal phase support for in vitro fertilization (IVF) protocols involving gonadotropins and/or gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs. The aim of the present study was to perform an updated meta-analysis on the efficacy of progesterone versus progesterone plus estrogen as luteal phase support. We searched the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases (up to March 18, 2014). The search terms were (estrogen OR estradiol OR oestradiol) AND (progesterone) AND (IVF OR in vitro fertilization) AND (randomized OR prospective). We did not limit the form of estrogen and included subjects who contributed more than 1 cycle to a study. The primary outcome was clinical pregnancy rate. Secondary outcomes were ongoing pregnancy rate, fertilization rate, implantation rate, and miscarriage rate. A total of 11 articles were included in the present analysis, with variable numbers of studies assessing each outcome measure. Results of statistical analyses indicated that progesterone plus estrogen treatment was more likely to result in clinical pregnancy than progesterone alone (pooled odds ratio 1.617, 95% confidence interval 1.059-2.471; P = 0.026). No significant difference between the 2 treatment regimens was found for the other outcome measures. Progesterone plus estrogen for luteal phase support is associated with a higher clinical pregnancy rate than progesterone alone in women undergoing IVF, but other outcomes such as ongoing pregnancy rate, fertilization rate, implantation rate, and miscarriage rate are the same for both treatments.