IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0091796.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is a GnRH Antagonist Protocol Better in PCOS Patients? A Meta-Analysis of RCTs

Author

Listed:
  • Haiyan Lin
  • Yu Li
  • Lin Li
  • Wenjun Wang
  • Dongzi Yang
  • Qingxue Zhang

Abstract

Objective: To review published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the outcomes of in vitro fertilization/intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) utilization of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists for ovarian stimulation in polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) patients compared with classic luteal long agonist protocols. Design: A meta-analysis of prospective randomized trials published in English between 2002 and 2013. Patient(s) and Interventions: Nine RCTs examining PCOS patients undergoing IVF/ICSI including 588 women who underwent long agonist protocols and 554 women who underwent GnRH antagonist protocols. Main Outcome Measure(s): Clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) rate. Result(s): Nine RCTs were included in this analysis. The CPR-per-embryo transferred was similar in the two groups (relative risk (RR): 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85–1.10). Non-significant estimates comparing the two protocols were found for age, BMI, total dose of gonadotropin administered, number of days of stimulation and number of oocytes retrieved. After meta-analysis of 4 of the RCTs, it was concluded that a GnRH antagonist protocol is better than an agonist long protocol to reduce the rate of severe OHSS (odds ratio (OR): 1.56, 95% CI: 0.29–8.51). Conclusion(s): With respect to CPR, a GnRH antagonist protocol is similar to a GnRH agonist long protocol. However, for severe OHSS, a GnRH antagonist protocol is significantly better in PCOS patients.

Suggested Citation

  • Haiyan Lin & Yu Li & Lin Li & Wenjun Wang & Dongzi Yang & Qingxue Zhang, 2014. "Is a GnRH Antagonist Protocol Better in PCOS Patients? A Meta-Analysis of RCTs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-9, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0091796
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0091796
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0091796
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0091796&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0091796?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0091796. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.