Keywords
Follicular phrase long regimen
Luteal phase long regimen
Meta-analysis
Submitted : 2024-05-21
Accepted : 2024-06-05
Published : 2024-06-20
Abstract
Objective: To systematically evaluate the clinical effects of the follicular phase long regimen and the luteal phase long regimen on ovulation induction in IVF-ET treatment. Methods: Databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Chinese Biomedical Literature (CBM), VIP, Wanfang, and others were searched up to January 2021. Clinical studies on ovulation induction using the follicular phase long regimen and luteal phase long regimen in IVF-ET treatment were identified. Literature screening, data extraction, and quality evaluation were conducted based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. Results: After screening, a total of 11 studies were included, comprising 21,544 patients: 9,974 in the follicular phase long regimen group and 11,570 in the luteal phase long regimen group. The meta-analysis results were as follows: (1) The number of Gn days and the total amount of Gn in the follicular phase long regimen were higher than those in the luteal phase long regimen (P < 0.05); (2) The number of eggs obtained in the follicular phase long regimen was higher than that in the luteal phase long regimen (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the rate of embryo optimization and cycle cancellation between the two groups (P > 0.05); (3) The embryo implantation rate and clinical pregnancy rate in the follicular phase long regimen were higher than those in the luteal phase long regimen (P < 0.05), while the abortion rate in the follicular phase long regimen was lower than that in the luteal phase long regimen (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Compared to the luteal phase long regimen, the follicular phase long regimen involves more Gn days and a higher total amount of Gn. The optimal embryo rate and cycle cancellation rate were similar between the regimens, but the follicular phase long regimen resulted in more eggs, significantly improved the implantation and clinical pregnancy rates, and reduced the abortion rate. However, these conclusions require further validation through more multicenter, large-sample RCT studies.
References
Porter RN, Smith W, Craft IL, et al., 1984, Induction of Ovulation for In-Vitro Fertilisation Using Buserelin and Gonadotropins. Lancet, 2(8414): 1284–1285. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(84)92840-x
Urbancsek J, Witthaus E, 1996, Midluteal Buserelin is Superior to Early Follicular Phase Buserelin in Combined Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Analog and Gonadotropin Stimulation in In Vitro Fertilization. Fertil Steril, 65(5): 966–971.
Zhang F, 2019, Application of Long-Acting Regimen in Follicular Phase and Short-Acting Regimen in Luteal Phase in IVF-ET of Patients with Good Ovarian Reserve. Chinese Journal of Eugenics and Genetics, 27(2): 245–246 + 23.
Hu LL, Dai W, Sun YP, 2016, Comparison of the Clinical Effect of Long-Acting and Short-Acting GnRH Agonist in the Luteal Phase of Follicular Phase. Journal of Reproductive Medicine, 25(10): 919–925.
San Roman GA, Surrey ES, Judd HL, et al., 1992, A Prospective Randomized Comparison of Luteal Phase Versus Concurrent Follicular Phase Initiation of Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Agonist for In Vitro Fertilization. Fertil Steril, 58(4): 744–749. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(16)55322-9
Sarhan A, Harira M, Elshazly S, et al., 2016, Comparing Stimulation Requirements and Final Outcome Between Early Follicular and Mid Luteal Pituitary Suppression in the Long Gonadotropin Releasing Hormone Agonist Protocol. JBRA Assist Reprod, 20(2): 59–61. https://doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20160014
Kondaveeti-Gordon U, Harrison RF, Barry-Kinsella C, et al., 1996, A Randomized Prospective Study of Early Follicular or Midluteal Initiation of Long Protocol Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone in an In Vitro Fertilization Program. Fertil Steril, 66(4): 582–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(16)58571-9
Yin Y, Li Q, Zhang C, et al., 2020, Evaluation of the Clinical Effect of Long-Acting Regimen in Early Follicle Stage and Short-Acting Regimen in Middle Luteal Stage Based on Live Birth Rate of Fresh Embryo Transfer Cycle and Cumulative Live Birth Rate Per Egg Retrieval Cycle. Advances in Modern Obstetrics and Gynecology, 29(11): 809–814.
Zhu L, Huang J, Luo G, et al., 2019, Comparison of Clinical Effects between the Long Follicular Phase Protocol and the Long Luteal Phase Protocol. Shenzhen Journal of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, 29(14): 180–181.
Tan Q, Qiu Y, 2017, Comparison between Long Follicular Phase Protocol and Long Luteal Phase Protocol. Chinese Journal of Woman and Child Health Research, 28(S2): 176.
Tan ZJ, Qiu Y, Huang LJ, et al., 2020, Comparison of Clinical Efficacy of Long-Acting Regimen in Follicular Phase and Long-Acting Regimen in Luteal Phase. Journal of Practical Gynecological Endocrinology (Electronic), 7(10): 3–4.
Tan Y, Cui Y-Y, Ma C-S, et al., 2020, Comparison of Cumulative Pregnancy Rate Between Long-Acting IVF Regimen in Follicular Phase and Short-Acting IVF Regimen in Luteal Phase. Journal of Reproductive Medicine, 29(11): 1410–1414.
Guo PP, Tan L, 2020, Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Three Different Down-Regulated Ovulation Promotion Regimens. China Family Planning & Obstetrics & Gynecology, 12(3): 67–69.
Huang Q, Long X, Chen Y, et al., 2002, Effect of Two Controlled Superovulation Regimens on IVF-ET Outcomes. Journal of Practical Medicine, 2002(3): 237–238.
Ron-El R, Herman A, Golan A, et al., 1990, The Comparison of Early Follicular and Midluteal Administration of Long-Acting Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Agonist. Fertil Steril, 54(2): 233–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(16)53695-4
Yim SF, Lok IH, Cheung LP, et al., 2001, Dose-Finding Study for the Use of Long-Acting Gonadotrophin-Releasing Hormone Analogues Prior to Ovarian Stimulation for IVF. Hum Reprod, 16(3): 492–494. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/16.3.492
Albuquerque LET, Tso LO, Saconato H, et al., 2013, Depot Versus Daily Administration of Gonadotrophin-Releasing Hormone Agonist Protocols for Pituitary Down Regulation in Assisted Reproduction Cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2013(1): CD002808. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002808.pub3
Gao J, Xu YW, Miao BY, et al., 2014, Self-Control Study on Reduced-Dose Depot Versus Daily Administration of Gonadotrophin-Releasing Hormone Agonists for Pituitary Desensitization in In Vitro Fertilization Cycles. J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 40(7): 1901–1906. https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.12417
Chen X, Wei Z, Cao Y, et al., 2009, The Effect of Prolongation of Gonadotropin Use Time on the Outcome of Low Ovarian Response in IVF-ET. China Maternal and Child Health Care, 24(15): 2135–2138.
Chen SL, Wu FR, Luo C, et al., 2010, Combined Analysis of Endometrial Thickness and Pattern in Predicting Outcome of In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol, 8: 30. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7827-8-30
Gao G, Cui X, Li S, et al., 2020, Endometrial Thickness and IVF Cycle Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis. Reprod Biomed Online, 40(1): 124–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2019.09.005
Ma W, Song H, Das SK, et al., 2003, Estrogen is a Critical Determinant That Specifies the Duration of the Window of Uterine Receptivity for Implantation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 100(5): 2963–2968. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0530162100
Edwards RG, 1995, Clinical Approaches to Increasing Uterine Receptivity During Human Implantation. Hum Reprod, 10 Suppl 2: 60–66. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/10.suppl_2.60