12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Recombinant human luteinizing hormone co-treatment in ovarian stimulation for assisted reproductive technology in women of advanced reproductive age: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Several studies suggest that luteinizing hormone (LH) could improve IVF outcome in women of advanced reproductive age by optimizing androgen production. In this review, we assessed the role of recombinant-human LH (r-hLH) and recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone (r-hFSH) co-treatment in ovarian stimulation for assisted reproductive technology in women of advanced reproductive age candidates for assisted reproduction.

          Material and methods

          Using a preregistered protocol we systematically searched Medline/PubMed, Scopus and the ISI Web of Science databases to identify randomized controlled trials in which r-hFSH monotherapy protocols were compared with r-hFSH/r-hLH co-treatment in women ≥35 years undergoing fresh IVF cycles. We calculated the pooled odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous data and the weight mean difference (WMD) for continuous data with an associated 95% confidence interval (CI). The meta-analyses were conducted using the random-effect model. P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Subgroup analyses of all primary and secondary outcomes were performed only in women aged 35–40 years.

          Results

          Twelve studies were identified. In women aged between 35 and 40 years, r-hFSH/r-hLH co-treatment was associated with higher clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.45, CI 95% 1.05–2.00, I 2 = 0%, P = 0.03) and implantation rates (OR 1.49, CI 95% 1.10–2.01, I 2 = 13%, P = 0.01) versus r-hFSH monotherapy. Fewer oocytes were retrieved in r-hFSH/r-hLH-treated patients than in r-hFSH-treated patients both in women aged ≥35 years (WMD -0.82 CI 95% -1.40 to − 0.24, I 2 = 88%, P = 0.005) and in those aged between 35 and 40 years (WMD -1.03, CI − 1.89 to − 0.17, I 2 = 0%, P = 0.02). The number of metaphase II oocytes, miscarriage rates and live birth rates did not differ between the two groups of women overall or in subgroup analysis.

          Conclusion

          Although more oocytes were retrieved in patients who underwent r-hFSH monotherapy, this meta-analysis suggests that r-hFSH/r-hLH co-treatment improves clinical pregnancy and implantation rates in women between 35 and 40 years of age undergoing ovarian stimulation for assisted reproduction technology. However, more RCTs using narrower age ranges in advanced age women are warranted to corroborate these findings.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12958-021-00759-4.

          Related collections

          Most cited references90

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

            Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The International Glossary on Infertility and Fertility Care, 2017.

              Can a consensus and evidence-driven set of terms and definitions be generated to be used globally in order to ensure consistency when reporting on infertility issues and fertility care interventions, as well as to harmonize communication among the medical and scientific communities, policy-makers, and lay public including individuals and couples experiencing fertility problems?
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                alessandro.conforti@unina.it
                Journal
                Reprod Biol Endocrinol
                Reprod Biol Endocrinol
                Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology : RB&E
                BioMed Central (London )
                1477-7827
                21 June 2021
                21 June 2021
                2021
                : 19
                : 91
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.4691.a, ISNI 0000 0001 0790 385X, University of Naples Federico II, Department of Neuroscience, Reproductive Science and Odontostomatology, , University of Naples Federico II, ; Naples, Italy
                [2 ]GRID grid.489976.d, ISNI 0000 0004 0437 566X, ANDROFERT, Andrology and Human Reproduction Clinic, ; Campinas, Brazil
                [3 ]GRID grid.411087.b, ISNI 0000 0001 0723 2494, Department of Surgery, , University of Campinas, ; Campinas, Brazil
                [4 ]GRID grid.7048.b, ISNI 0000 0001 1956 2722, Faculty of Health, , Aarhus University, ; Aarhus, Denmark
                [5 ]GRID grid.416035.5, Fertility Clinic, , Skive Regional Hospital, ; Skive, Denmark
                [6 ]GRID grid.476476.0, ISNI 0000 0004 1758 4006, Merck Serono S.p.A, ; Rome, Italy
                [7 ]GRID grid.5596.f, ISNI 0000 0001 0668 7884, Department of Development and Regeneration, Biomedical Sciences Group, , KU Leuven (University of Leuven), Merck, ; Leuven, Belgium
                [8 ]KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany
                [9 ]GRID grid.413795.d, ISNI 0000 0001 2107 2845, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, , Chaim Sheba Medical Center, ; Ramat Gan, Israel
                [10 ]GRID grid.12136.37, ISNI 0000 0004 1937 0546, The Tarnesby-Tarnowski Chair for Family Planning and Fertility Regulation, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, , Tel-Aviv University, ; Tel-Aviv, Israel
                [11 ]GRID grid.487136.f, ISNI 0000 0004 1756 2878, Clinica Valle Giulia, G.EN.E.R.A. Centers for Reproductive Medicine, ; Rome, Italy
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5676-0055
                Article
                759
                10.1186/s12958-021-00759-4
                8215738
                34154604
                ef28c904-a0fe-4a97-89c5-27cec5d79277
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 2 November 2020
                : 10 May 2021
                Categories
                Review
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Human biology
                luteinizing hormone,recombinant luteinizing hormone,assisted reproductive technology,in vitro fertilization,advanced reproductive age

                Comments

                Comment on this article