Growth hormone for in vitro fertilisation (IVF).

Cochrane Database Syst Rev

Department of Reproductive Medicine, St. Mary's Hospital, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.

Published: November 2021

Background: In an effort to improve outcomes of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycles, the use of growth hormone (GH) has been considered as adjuvant treatment in ovarian stimulation. Improving the outcomes of IVF is especially important for women with infertility who are considered 'poor responders'. We have compared the outcomes of IVF with adjuvant GH versus no adjuvant treatment in routine use, and specifically in poor responders.

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and safety of growth hormone as an adjunct to IVF compared to standard IVF for women with infertility SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases (to November 2020): Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Epistemonikos database and trial registers together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional trials.

Selection Criteria: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adjuvant GH treatment in IVF compared with no adjuvant treatment for women with infertility. We excluded trials where additional adjuvant treatments were used with GH. We also excluded trials comparing different IVF protocols.

Data Collection And Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Two review authors independently performed assessment of trial risk of bias and extraction of relevant data. The primary review outcome was live birth rate. The secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate, oocytes retrieved, embryo transfer, units of gonadotropin used and adverse events, i.e. ectopic pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), congenital anomalies, oedema.

Main Results: We included 16 RCTs (1352 women). Two RCTs (80 women) studied GH in routine use, and 14 RCTs (1272 women) studied GH in poor responders. The evidence was low to very low certainty, the main limitations being risk of bias, imprecision and heterogeneity. Adjuvant growth hormone compared to no adjuvant: routine use for in vitro fertilisation (IVF) The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GH on live birth rate per woman randomised for routine use in IVF (odds ratio (OR) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 4.43; I = 0%; 2 trials, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). If the chance of live birth without adjuvant GH is assumed to be 15%, the chance of live birth with GH would be between 6% and 43%. There was insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion regarding clinical pregnancy rates per woman randomised, number of women with at least one oocyte retrieved per woman randomised and embryo transfer achieved per woman randomised; reported data were unsuitable for analysis. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GH on mean number of oocytes retrieved in normal responders (mean difference (MD) -0.02, 95% CI -0.79 to 0.74; I = 0%; 2 trials, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GH on mean units of gonadotropin used in normal responders (MD 13.57, 95% CI -112.88 to 140.01; I = 0%; 2 trials, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of GH on adverse events in normal responders. Adjuvant growth hormone compared to no adjuvant: use in poor responders for in vitro fertilisation (IVF) The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GH on live birth rate per woman randomised for poor responders (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.70; I = 0%; 8 trials, 737 participants; very low-certainty evidence). If the chance of live birth without adjuvant GH is assumed to be 11%, the chance of live birth with GH would be between 13% and 25%. Adjuvant GH results in a slight increase in pregnancy rates in poor responders (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.53; I = 15%; 11 trials, 1033 participants; low-certainty evidence). The results suggest, if the pregnancy rate without adjuvant GH is assumed to be 15%, with GH the pregnancy rate in poor responders would be between 19% and 31%. The evidence suggests that GH results in little to no difference in number of women with at least one oocyte retrieved (OR 5.67, 95% CI 1.54 to 20.83; I = 0%; 2 trials, 148 participants; low-certainty evidence). If the chance of retrieving at least one oocyte in poor responders was 81%, with GH the chance is between 87% and 99%. There is a slight increase in mean number of oocytes retrieved with the use of GH for poor responders (MD 1.40, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.64; I = 87%; 12 trials, 1153 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GH on embryo transfer achieved (OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.08 to 4.96; I = 25%; 4 trials, 214 participants; very low-certainty evidence). If the chance of achieving embryo transfer is assumed to be 77%, the chance with GH will be 78% to 94%. Use of GH results in reduction of mean units of gonadotropins used for stimulation in poor responders (MD -1088.19, 95% CI -1203.20 to -973.18; I = 91%; 8 trials, 685 participants; low-certainty evidence). High heterogeneity in the analyses for mean number of oocytes retrieved and units of GH used suggests quite different effects according to differences including in trial protocols (populations, GH dose and schedule), so these results should be interpreted with caution. We are uncertain of the effect of GH on adverse events in poor responders as six of the 14 included trials failed to report this outcome.

Authors' Conclusions: The use of adjuvant GH in IVF treatment protocols has uncertain effect on live birth rates and mean number of oocytes retrieved in normal responders. However, it slightly increases the number of oocytes retrieved and pregnancy rates in poor responders, while there is an uncertain effect on live birth rates in this group. The results however, need to be interpreted with caution, as the included trials were small and few in number, with significant bias and imprecision. Also, the dose and regimen of GH used in trials was variable. Therefore, further research is necessary to fully define the role of GH as adjuvant therapy in IVF.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8608438PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000099.pub4DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

poor responders
40
live birth
36
participants low-certainty
36
low-certainty evidence
36
oocytes retrieved
24
evidence uncertain
24
growth hormone
20
woman randomised
20
number oocytes
20
evidence
17

Similar Publications

This study aims to explore the measurement agreement between direct and indirect health utility measures in four chronic dermatological conditions (atopic dermatitis, hidradenitis suppurativa, pemphigus, psoriasis). Outpatients survey data collected between 2015 and 2021 were analysed. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcome measures included time trade-off (TTO), EQ-5D-5L and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI).

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Assessment of Quality of Life in Mothers of Visually Impaired Children.

J Coll Physicians Surg Pak

January 2025

Al-Shifa School of Public Health, Al-Shifa Trust Eye Hospital, Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

Objective: To assess the factors that affect mothers' quality of life (QOL) and the association of various demographic variables with QOL of the respondents.

Study Design: A cross-sectional survey. Place and Duration of the Study: Al-Shifa Trust Eye Hospital, Rawalpindi, Pakistan, from April to September 2023.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Purpose: To assess the level of moral distress (MD) and perceptions of ethical climate among pediatric hematology/oncology (PHO) nurses and to identify bioethics topics where increased education was desired.

Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we administered the 26-item Swedish Moral Distress Scale-Revised (sMDS-R), specifically revised and validated for pediatric oncology, in conjunction with the Clinical Ethics Needs Assessment Survey (CENAS). Electronic surveys were sent to inpatient and outpatient PHO nurses.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Objectives: Palliative care (PC) is an interdisciplinary approach aimed at improving the physical, psychological, and spiritual well-being of patients and families affected by life-threatening diseases. This study aimed to investigate the need for PC among critically ill patients and their quality of life (QOL) in low-income groups in Bangladesh.

Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted at four healthcare facilities from March to April 2023, involving 553 registered patients with advanced chronic conditions.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!