↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted reproductive technology

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
320 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
Title
Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted reproductive technology
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001750.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Al-Inany HG, Youssef MA, Aboulghar M, Broekmans F, Sterrenburg M, Smit J, Abou-Setta AM, Al-Inany, Hesham G, Youssef, Mohamed Afm, Aboulghar, Mohamed, Broekmans, Frank, Sterrenburg, Monique, Smit, Janine, Abou-Setta, Ahmed M

Abstract

Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists can be used to prevent a luteinizing hormone (LH) surge during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) without the hypo-estrogenic side-effects, flare-up, or long down-regulation period associated with agonists. The antagonists directly and rapidly inhibit gonadotropin 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 regimes 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. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists with the standard long protocol of GnRH agonists for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in assisted conception cycle We performed electronic searches of major databases, for example Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE (from 1987 to April 2010); 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). A date limited search of Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL from April 2010 to April 2011 was run. Eighteen studies have been entered into the Classification pending references section of this update. These studies will be appraised for inclusion or exclusion in the next update of this review, due April 2012. Two review authors independently screened the relevant citations for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different agonist versus antagonist protocols in women undergoing IVF or ICSI. Two review authors independently assessed trial risk of bias and extracted data. If relevant data were missing or unclear, the authors were contacted for clarification. Forty-five RCTs (n = 7511) comparing the antagonist to the long agonist protocols fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There was no evidence of a statistically significant difference in rates of live-births (9 RCTs; odds ratio (OR) 0.86, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.08) or ongoing pregnancy (28 RCTs; OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.00). There was a statistically significant lower incidence of OHSS in the GnRH antagonist group (29 RCTs; OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.57). The use of antagonist compared with long GnRH agonist protocols was associated with a large reduction in OHSS and there was no evidence of a difference in live-birth rates.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Nigeria 1 1%
Russia 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 87 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 14%
Researcher 13 14%
Other 10 11%
Student > Master 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Other 22 24%
Unknown 18 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 56%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 24 26%