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
Download full text from publisher
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.