Long-acting follicle-stimulating hormone versus daily follicle-stimulating hormone for women undergoing assisted reproduction.

Follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) given as a weekly injection in a medium dose is as safe and effective as a daily FSH injection for women undergoing assisted reproduction.

Long-acting FSH versus daily FSH for women undergoing assisted reproduction.

BACKGROUND: Assisted reproduction techniques (ART), such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), can help subfertile couples to create a family. It is necessary to induce multiple follicles, which is achieved by follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) injections. Current treatment regimens prescribe daily injections of FSH (urinary FSH either with or without luteinizing hormone (LH) injections or recombinant FSH (rFSH)).Recombinant DNA technologies have produced a new recombinant molecule which is a long-acting FSH, named corifollitropin alfa (Elonva) or FSH-CTP. A single dose of long-acting FSH is able to keep the circulating FSH level above the threshold necessary to support multi-follicular growth for an entire week. The optimal dose of long-acting FSH is still being determined. A single injection of long-acting FSH can replace seven daily FSH injections during the first week of controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) and can make assisted reproduction more patient friendly. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of long-acting FSH versus daily FSH in terms of pregnancy and safety outcomes in women undergoing IVF or ICSI treatment cycles. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases, trial registers and websites from inception to June 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialized Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, electronic trial registers for ongoing and registered trials, citation indexes, conference abstracts in the ISI Web of Knowledge, LILACS, Clinical Study Results (for clinical trial results of marketed pharmaceuticals), PubMed and OpenSIGLE. We also carried out handsearches. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing long-acting FSH versus daily FSH in women who were part of a couple with subfertility and undertaking IVF or ICSI treatment cycles with a GnRH antagonist or agonist protocol. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias. We contacted trial authors in cases of missing data. We calculated risk ratios for each outcome, and our primary outcomes were live birth rate and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) rate. Our secondary outcomes were ongoing pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, multiple pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, any other adverse event (including ectopic pregnancy, congenital malformations, drug side effects and infection) and patient satisfaction with the treatment. Trials reported all outcomes, except patient satisfaction with the treatment. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs with a total of 3753 participants and we graded the quality of the included studies as moderate. All studies included women with an indication for COS as part of an IVF/ICSI cycle with age ranging from 18 to 41 years. A comparison of long-acting FSH versus daily FSH did not show evidence of difference in effect on overall live birth rate (Risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.07; 2363 participants, eight studies; I² statistic = 44%) or OHSS (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.37; 3753 participants, nine studies; I² statistic = 0%). We compared subgroups by dose of long-acting FSH. There was evidence of reduced live birth rate in women who received lower doses (60 to 120 µg) of long-acting FSH compared to daily FSH (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.93; 645 participants, three studies; I² statistic = 0%). There was no evidence a difference between the groups in live births in the medium dose (150 to 180 µg) subgroup (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.18; 1685 participants, four studies; I² statistic = 6%). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in the clinical pregnancy rate (any dose), ongoing pregnancy rate (any dose), multiple pregnancy rate (any dose), miscarriage rate (low or medium dose), ectopic pregnancy rate (any dose), congenital malformation rate, congenital malformation rate; major or minor (low or medium dose). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The use of a medium dose (150 to 180 µg) of long-acting FSH is a safe treatment option and equally effective compared to daily FSH in women with unexplained subfertility. There was evidence of reduced live birth rate in women receiving a low dose (60 to 120 µg) of long-acting FSH compared to daily FSH. Further research is needed to determine whether long-acting FSH is safe and effective for use in hyper- or poor responders and in women with all causes of subfertility.

Minimally invasive surgical techniques versus open myomectomy for uterine fibroids.

BACKGROUND: Fibroids are common benign tumours arising in the uterus. Myomectomy is the surgical treatment of choice for women with symptomatic fibroids who prefer or want uterine conservation. Myomectomy can be performed by conventional laparotomy, by mini-laparotomy or by minimal access techniques such as hysteroscopy and laparoscopy. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of laparoscopic or hysteroscopic myomectomy compared with open myomectomy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (inception to July 2014), the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register of Controlled Trials (inception to July 2014), MEDLINE(R) (inception to July 2014), EMBASE (inception to July 2014), PsycINFO (inception to July 2014) and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (inception to July 2014) to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We also searched trial registers and references from selected relevant trials and review articles. We applied no language restriction in these searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials comparing myomectomy via laparotomy, mini-laparotomy or laparoscopically assisted mini-laparotomy versus laparoscopy or hysteroscopy in premenopausal women with uterine fibroids diagnosed by clinical and ultrasound examination were included in the meta-analysis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We conducted study selection and extracted data in duplicate. Primary outcomes were postoperative pain, reported in six studies, and in-hospital adverse events, reported in eight studies. Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, reported in four studies, operating time, reported in eight studies and recurrence of fibroids, reported in three studies. Each of the other secondary outcomes-improvement in menstrual symptoms, change in quality of life, repeat myomectomy and hysterectomy at a later date-was reported in a single study. Odds ratios (ORs), mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and data combined using the fixed-effect model. The quality of evidence was assessed using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods. MAIN RESULTS: We found 23 potentially relevant trials, of which nine were eligible for inclusion in this review. The nine trials included in our meta-analysis had a total of 808 women. The overall risk of bias of included studies was low, as most studies properly reported their methods.Postoperative pain: Postoperative pain was measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS), with zero meaning 'no pain at all' and 10 signifying 'pain as bad as it could be.' Postoperative pain was significantly less, as determined by subjectively assessed pain score at six hours (MD -2.40, 95% CI -2.88 to -1.92, one study, 148 women, moderate-quality evidence) and 48 hours postoperatively (MD -1.90, 95% CI -2.80 to -1.00, two studies, 80 women, I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence) in the laparoscopic myomectomy group compared with the open myomectomy group. This means that among women undergoing laparoscopic myomectomy, mean pain score at six hours and 48 hours would be likely to range from about three points lower to one point lower on a VAS zero-to-10 scale. No significant difference in postoperative pain score was noted between the laparoscopic and open myomectomy groups at 24 hours (MD -0.29, 95% CI -0.7 to 0.12, four studies, 232 women, I² = 43%, moderate-quality evidence). The overall quality of these findings is moderate; therefore further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.In-hospital adverse events: No evidence suggested a difference in unscheduled return to theatre (OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.12 to 75.86, two studies, 188 women, I² = 0%, low-quality evidence) and laparoconversion (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.83, eight studies, 756 women, I² = 53%, moderate-quality evidence) when open myomectomy was compared with laparoscopic myomectomy. Only one study including 148 women reported injury to pelvic organs (no events were described in other studies), and no significant difference was noted between laparoscopic myomectomy and laparoscopically assisted mini-laparotomy myomectomy (OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.12 to 75.86). Significantly lower risk of postoperative fever was observed in the laparoscopic myomectomy group compared with groups treated with all types of open myomectomy (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.77, I² = 0%, six studies, 635 women). This indicates that among women undergoing laparoscopic myomectomy, the risk of postoperative fever is 50% lower than among those treated with open surgery. No studies reported immediate hysterectomy, uterine rupture, thromboembolism or mortality. Six studies including 549 women reported haemoglobin drop, but these studies were not pooled because of extreme heterogeneity (I² = 97%) and therefore could not be included in the analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic myomectomy is a procedure associated with less subjectively reported postoperative pain, lower postoperative fever and shorter hospital stay compared with all types of open myomectomy. No evidence suggested a difference in recurrence risk between laparoscopic and open myomectomy. More studies are needed to assess rates of uterine rupture, occurrence of thromboembolism, need for repeat myomectomy and hysterectomy at a later stage.

Long-acting FSH versus daily FSH for women undergoing assisted reproduction.

BACKGROUND: Assisted reproduction techniques (ART) such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) can help subfertile couples to create a family. It is necessary to induce multiple follicles; this is achieved by follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) injections. Current treatment regimens prescribe daily injections of FSH (urinary FSH with or without luteinizing hormone (LH) injections or recombinant FSH (rFSH)).Recombinant DNA technologies have produced a new recombinant molecule which is a long-acting FSH, named corifollitropin alfa (Elonva) or FSH-CTP. A single dose of long-acting FSH is able to keep the circulating FSH level above the threshold necessary to support multi-follicular growth for an entire week. The optimal dose of long-acting FSH is still being determined. A single injection of long-acting FSH can replace seven daily FSH injections during the first week of controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) and can make assisted reproduction more patient friendly. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of long-acting FSH versus daily FSH in terms of pregnancy and safety outcomes in women undergoing IVF or ICSI treatment cycles. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases, trial registers and websites: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, electronic trial registers for ongoing and registered trials, citation indexes, conference abstracts in the ISI Web of Knowledge, LILACS, Clinical Study Results (for clinical trial results of marketed pharmaceuticals), PubMed and OpenSIGLE (10 October 2011). We also carried out handsearches. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing long-acting FSH versus daily FSH in women who were part of a couple with subfertility and undertaking IVF or ICSI treatment cycles with a GnRH antagonist or agonist protocol were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias was independently done by two review authors. Original trial authors were contacted in the case of missing data. We calculated Peto odds ratios for each outcome; our primary outcomes were live birth rate and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) rate. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs with a total of 2335 participants. A comparison of long-acting FSH versus daily FSH did not show evidence of difference in effect on overall live birth rate (Peto OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.10, 4 RCTs, 2335 women) or OHSS (Peto OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.60, 4 RCTs, 2335 women). We compared subgroups by dose of long-acting FSH. There was evidence of reduced live birth rate in women who received lower doses (60 to 120 µg) of long-acting FSH compared to daily FSH (Peto OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.91, 3 RCTs, 645 women). There was no evidence of effect on live births in the medium dose subgroup (Peto OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.27) and no evidence of effect on clinical pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, multiple pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate or ectopic pregnancy rate. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The use of a medium dose of long-acting FSH is a safe treatment option and equally effective compared to daily FSH. Further research is needed to determine if long-acting FSH is safe and effective for use in hyper- or poor responders and in women with all causes of subfertility.