Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Human Reproduction Update logoLink to Human Reproduction Update
. 2023 Jan 3;29(3):307–326. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmac040

What is the optimal GnRH antagonist protocol for ovarian stimulation during ART treatment? A systematic review and network meta-analysis

C A Venetis 1,2,✉, A Storr 3,4, S J Chua 5, B W Mol 6, S Longobardi 7, X Yin 8, T D’Hooghe 9,10,11
PMCID: PMC10152179  PMID: 36594696

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Several GnRH antagonist protocols are currently used during COS in the context of ART treatments; however, questions remain regarding whether these protocols are comparable in terms of efficacy and safety.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

A systematic review followed by a pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed. The systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis of direct comparative data according to the PRISMA guidelines evaluated the effectiveness of different GnRH antagonist protocols (fixed Day 5/6 versus flexible, ganirelix versus cetrorelix, with or without hormonal pretreatment) on the probability of live birth and ongoing pregnancy after COS during ART treatment. A frequentist network meta-analysis combining direct and indirect comparisons (using the long GnRH agonist protocol as the comparator) was also performed to enhance the precision of the estimates.

SEARCH METHODS

The systematic literature search was performed using Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Trials (CENTRAL), SCOPUS and Web of Science (WOS), from inception until 23 November 2021. The search terms comprised three different MeSH terms that should be present in the identified studies: GnRH antagonist; assisted reproduction treatment; randomized controlled trial (RCT). Only studies published in English were included.

OUTCOMES

The search strategy resulted in 6738 individual publications, of which 102 were included in the systematic review (corresponding to 75 unique studies) and 73 were included in the meta-analysis. Most studies were of low quality. One study compared a flexible protocol with a fixed Day 5 protocol and the remaining RCTs with a fixed Day 6 protocol. There was a lack of data regarding live birth when comparing the flexible and fixed GnRH antagonist protocols or cetrorelix and ganirelix. No significant difference in live birth rate was observed between the different pretreatment regimens versus no pretreatment or between the different pretreatment protocols. A flexible GnRH antagonist protocol resulted in a significantly lower OPR compared with a fixed Day 5/6 protocol (relative risk (RR) 0.76, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.94, I2 = 0%; 6 RCTs; n = 907 participants; low certainty evidence). There were insufficient data for a comparison of cetrorelix and ganirelix for OPR. OCP pretreatment was associated with a lower OPR compared with no pretreatment intervention (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.92; I2 = 0%; 5 RCTs, n = 1318 participants; low certainty evidence). Furthermore, in the network meta-analysis, a fixed protocol with OCP resulted in a significantly lower OPR than a fixed protocol with no pretreatment (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.99; moderate quality evidence). The surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) scores suggested that the fixed protocol with no pretreatment is the antagonist protocol most likely (84%) to result in the highest OPR. There was insufficient evidence of a difference between fixed/flexible or OCP pretreatment/no pretreatment interventions regarding other outcomes, such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and miscarriage rates.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

Available evidence, mostly of low quality and certainty, suggests that different antagonist protocols should not be considered as equivalent for clinical decision-making. More trials are required to assess the comparative effectiveness of ganirelix versus cetrorelix, the effect of different pretreatment interventions (e.g. progestins or oestradiol) or the effect of different criteria for initiation of the antagonist in the flexible protocol. Furthermore, more studies are required examining the optimal GnRH antagonist protocol in women with high or low response to ovarian stimulation.

Keywords: assisted reproductive technologies, ART, cetrorelix, controlled ovarian stimulation, ganirelix, GnRH antagonist, live birth, pregnancy

Graphical abstract

graphic file with name dmac040f5.jpg

Open in a new tab

This meta-analysis showed lower ongoing pregnancy rates (OPRs) following controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) using a flexible GnRH antagonist protocol or pretreatment with an oral contraceptive pill (OCP) compared with COS using a fixed protocol or no OCP pretreatment, respectively.

Introduction

During controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) in the context of ART, GnRH analogues (agonists and antagonists) are used to suppress pituitary function and prevent premature luteinization by inhibiting the production of endogenous FSH and LH. The most recent Cochrane meta-analysis reports that live birth rates (LBRs) using GnRH antagonist protocols were no different to those obtained with long GnRH agonist protocols, whereas GnRH antagonist treatment was associated with a lower incidence of any grade of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) than GnRH agonist protocols (Al-Inany et al., 2016). Hence, based on the available evidence, GnRH antagonist protocols seem to be equally efficacious to long GnRH agonist protocols, whilst also being safer and more patient-friendly (Al-Inany et al., 2016).

Several GnRH antagonist protocols are currently used during COS in the context of ART treatment, which is defined as pharmacological treatment in which women are stimulated to induce the development of multiple ovarian follicles to obtain multiple oocytes at follicular aspiration (Zegers-Hochschild et al., 2009). These protocols are based on the use of the most commonly available GnRH antagonists (cetrorelix and ganirelix) using either a fixed or flexible protocol. In the fixed protocol, GnRH antagonists are usually started on Day 5 or 6 of COS during ART treatment (Al-Inany et al., 2005), whereas in a flexible protocol, GnRH antagonists are started from the day when the largest ovarian follicle has reached a specific size, which may vary between 12 and 14 mm in most studies, and/or when serum oestradiol (E2) reaches a specific threshold (Al-Inany et al., 2005). Both antagonist protocols may be initiated with or without hormonal pretreatment (e.g. with the oral contraceptive pill (OCP), E2 or progestins), which has been used by clinicians for different purposes, such as synchronization of follicular development, prevention of occurrence of early large follicles or spontaneous LH surge, reduction of cyst formation and scheduling of IVF cycles for the benefit of clinicians and patients (e.g. scheduling of oocyte retrieval) (Farquhar et al., 2017). However, OCP pretreatment has previously been shown to be associated with decreased ongoing pregnancy rates (OPRs) compared with antagonist cycles without OCP pretreatment (Griesinger et al., 2010). Furthermore, in the 2020 ESHRE Guidelines, pre-treatment with oestrogen or progestins before using the GnRH antagonist protocol was ‘probably not recommended’ for improving efficacy and safety, and pre-treatment with the OCP (12–28 days) was not recommended in an GnRH antagonist protocol because of reduced efficacy (Bosch et al., 2020).

Despite the wide range of GnRH antagonist protocols currently used during COS in the context of ART treatment, after almost 20 years since their introduction in clinical practice it has not been properly evaluated whether all are equally efficacious and safe, and there are few studies that have directly compared outcomes from the different antagonist protocols. We have therefore performed a systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis of direct comparative data according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, with the primary aim of identifying the optimal antagonist protocol in terms of live birth and ongoing pregnancy. In addition, to enhance the precision of our estimates and utilize the large pool of randomized evidence available comparing antagonist protocols with the long GnRH agonist protocol, we performed a network meta-analysis, which combines both direct and indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

Study design

A pairwise systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to identify the antagonist protocol for optimizing OPR and LBR. Owing to the relative paucity of studies that directly compare different antagonist protocols, a frequentist network meta-analysis was also performed to validate the findings of the direct comparisons and increase their precision in cases where the direct comparison data were inconclusive or underpowered. The frequentist network meta-analysis made use of a larger body of evidence by combining direct and indirect evidence from RCTs in which any GnRH antagonist protocol, with or without OCP pretreatment, was compared with the long GnRH agonist protocol for three pregnancy outcomes: LBR, OPR and clinical pregnancy rate (CPR). In the network meta-analysis, data from a fixed antagonist protocol with no pretreatment were used as the common comparator for all comparisons. The protocol for this systematic review and meta-analysis has been registered with the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42019125037). The systematic review/meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines (Moher et al., 2009) and the frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA network meta-analysis statement (Hutton et al., 2015).

Objectives

The primary objectives of the systematic review and pairwise and frequentist network meta-analyses were to compare the effectiveness of the GnRH antagonist protocols on the probability of live birth (using the definitions in the constituent studies) and ongoing pregnancy (defined as positive cardiac activity at 10–12 weeks of gestation) after COS during ART treatment. These outcomes were compared between women who had the fixed Day 5/6 GnRH protocol with those who had a flexible protocol, women who were treated with cetrorelix compared with women who were treated with ganirelix, and between GnRH antagonist protocols with or without any type of hormonal pretreatment, respectively.

The secondary objectives were to compare the effectiveness of the different GnRH antagonist protocols on the probability of clinical pregnancy (defined as ultrasound detection of at least one intrauterine gestation sac at 5–8 weeks of pregnancy), first trimester clinical miscarriage (defined as the failure of a clinical pregnancy to achieve ongoing pregnancy status), duration of stimulation (defined as the number of days from the beginning of COS during ART treatment (first gonadotrophin injection) until the day of triggering final oocyte maturation), total dose of FSH (IUs) required to complete COS, the number of oocytes retrieved and the occurrence of moderate or severe OHSS, as defined in the individual studies.

In addition, exploratory analyses were performed to investigate differences in reproductive outcomes caused by potential sources of heterogeneity among patient subpopulations, according to type of response (high, normal or low responders), the criteria used to initiate the flexible protocol (ultrasound, hormonal or both), the type of pretreatment (OCP, E2 or progestin) and the duration of the pretreatment-free interval.

Search strategy

The literature search was performed by two independent reviewers (A.S. and S.J.C.) using a predefined literature search strategy of selected databases (Supplementary Table SI). Searches were performed from inception up to 23 November 2021.

Selection of studies

RCTs published in English were included in the pairwise and network meta-analyses if they reported on at least one of the research questions of interest by comparing one or more of the following in women undergoing COS during ART treatment: flexible protocols versus fixed Day 5/6 GnRH antagonist protocol; ganirelix versus cetrorelix; any type of hormonal pretreatment (e.g. OCP, E2 or progestins) versus no pretreatment in the GnRH protocol or placebo; any two types of hormonal pretreatment in the GnRH antagonist protocol (e.g. OCP versus E2 pretreatment). Studies were included in the pairwise meta-analyses if they directly compared the aforementioned GnRH antagonist protocols. For the network meta-analysis, studies were also extracted if they reported on any of the eligible GnRH antagonist protocols compared with the long GnRH agonist protocol. In the event of RCTs comparing three or more interventions, only data from the interventions of interest were extracted.

Studies were excluded if they were pseudo-randomized or non-randomized studies, had asymmetrical co-interventions, did not report a clear description of the methodology, GnRH antagonists/agonists and gonadotrophins were not used (e.g. COS with clomiphene or letrozole) or they evaluated a Day 2/3/4 fixed antagonist or a short agonist protocol.

The selected studies were screened sequentially according to article title, abstract and full text, to determine eligibility by two independent reviewers (A.S. and S.J.C.). The reference lists of relevant publications or review articles were also manually searched for any additional relevant references.

Data extraction

Two independent reviewers (A.S. and S.J.C.) extracted the predefined primary and secondary outcome data from the included studies using standardized tables developed by the authors to ensure consistency. When multiple reports describing the same trial were published, the most recent or complete report was used. In the event of a disagreement about the eligibility of a study that could not be resolved through discussion, resolution via a third reviewer (C.A.V.) was sought. If further information was needed to decide on the inclusion of a study, the authors of the original study were contacted.

Statistical analysis

All data were extracted and analysed by using the intention-to-treat principle. Qualitative and quantitative syntheses of all direct (pairwise) comparative data were performed using the random effects model (restricted maximum likelihood method with Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman correction (Hartung and Knapp, 2001; IntHout et al., 2014)). The effect size of choice was relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous data; uncertainty around these estimates was expressed using the 95% CIs. Statistical heterogeneity in each direct comparison was estimated with the I2 statistic (Deeks et al., 2019) and assessed in several predefined subgroups: patient population (normal, high and unselected responders; polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS)); criteria for the flexible protocol (ultrasound assessment only, hormone assessment or both); type of agonist (cetrorelix versus ganirelix); hormonal pretreatment versus no-pretreatment; duration of pretreatment-free interval. Publication bias was explored for the co-primary endpoints of this meta-analysis using the Harbord test (Harbord et al., 2006), as well as visually by constructing funnel plots and assessing for asymmetry (Sterne et al., 2011).

The frequentist network meta-analyses were performed using multivariate random effects meta-analysis models (White et al., 2012), with summary treatment effects presented as RR (95% CIs). Global inconsistency was assessed by using design-by-treatment interaction modelling (Higgins et al., 2012) and local inconsistency was assessed through the side-splitting approach (Dias et al., 2010). Surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) scores were used to rank the treatments of interest (Salanti et al., 2011). The SUCRA score gives the overall ranking of a treatment as a value ranging from 0% to 100%, where the closer the SUCRA score is to 100%, the higher the likelihood that the therapy is in the top rank (Mbuagbaw et al., 2017). STATA software (version 16.1, StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA) was used to perform the statistical analysis, and the network meta-analysis was performed using ‘network’ command suite (White, 2015).

For the pairwise meta-analyses, sensitivity analyses for the co-primary endpoints as well as for CPR were performed for all comparisons, with the exclusion of randomized studies without a clear description of the randomization methodology in the publication. For the network meta-analyses, to guarantee the robustness of the findings, a series of sensitivity analyses were performed, including: flexible versus fixed agonist protocol (cetrorelix and no pretreatment, cetrorelix and OCP, ganirelix and no pretreatment, and ganirelix and OCP) and ganirelix versus cetrorelix (fixed protocol and no pretreatment, fixed protocol and OCP, flexible protocol and no pretreatment and flexible protocol and OCP).

Risk of bias of individual studies was assessed by using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (Higgins et al., 2011). The overall certainty of the evidence obtained through direct comparisons was graded according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group guidelines (Guyatt et al., 2008). The Confidence in Network Meta-analysis (CINeMA) application was used to assess the quality of evidence across the included studies in the network meta-analysis (Nikolakopoulou et al., 2020).

Results

Selection of studies

Overall, 75 unique RCTs were included in the systematic review, and the data from 73 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Two studies were not included in the meta-analysis, because the number of women randomized in each intervention arm was not clearly defined (Batzofin et al., 2002; Verpoest et al., 2017). All studies were of low-to-moderate quality. The process involved in the screening and selection of eligible studies can be found in the PRISMA flow chart (Fig. 1). Of the 73 studies included in the meta-analysis, 7 compared GnRH fixed and flexible protocols, 14 compared different pretreatments with no pretreatments (2 of which contributed data both in the pairwise and the network meta-analysis), 2 compared ganirelix with cetrorelix, 1 compared NuvaRing® with OCP pretreatment (Supplementary Table SII) and 49 compared a GnRH antagonist with an agonist (Supplementary Table SIII).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

PRISMA diagram for a systematic review and network meta-analysis to determine the optimal GnRH antagonist protocol for controlled ovarian stimulation during ART treatment. OCP, oral contraceptive pill; PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; RCT, randomized controlled trial.

In the systematic review, 12 studies had a low overall risk of bias, 36 had moderate (e.g. some concerns) and 27 had a high risk of bias (Supplementary Table SIV). The risk of bias for outcome assessments was considered low owing to the use of pregnancy and live birth outcomes, which are considered to have a low risk of bias; however, the risk of performance bias was considered high, as participants were unlikely to be blinded, owing to the differences in ART protocols. Studies in which the method of randomization was unclear were graded as having a high overall risk. The occurrence of selective reporting was generally unclear, as most studies did not have a publicly available registered protocol. The GRADE analysis for the different outcomes in the pairwise meta-analysis generally suggested evidence of low certainty (Supplementary Table SV).

Primary outcomes (pairwise meta-analysis)

For the fixed versus flexible protocols, seven RCTs were identified for this outcome (Ludwig et al., 2002; Escudero et al., 2004; Mochtar, 2004; Kolibianakis et al., 2011; Hossein Rashidi et al., 2015; Depalo et al., 2018; Luo et al., 2021) (Supplementary Table SVI). Only one of these RCTs compared a flexible protocol with a fixed Day 5 protocol (Luo et al., 2021), therefore only comparisons between flexible and fixed Day 6 protocols were included in the analysis. Furthermore, no RCTs reported on LBR. A significantly lower OPR was reported with flexible versus fixed protocols (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.94, I2 = 0%; 6 RCTs; n = 907 participants; low certainty evidence) (Ludwig et al., 2002; Mochtar, 2004; Kolibianakis et al., 2011; Hossein Rashidi et al., 2015; Depalo et al., 2018; Luo et al., 2021) (Fig. 2A). Publication bias could not be confidently detected using either the Harbord test (beta: 0.02, P = 0.981) or by inspecting the funnel plot. In the sensitivity analysis, after exclusion of studies with unclear methods of randomization, the effect size was similar (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97, I2 = 0%; 4 RCTs; n = 663 participants) (Mochtar, 2004; Kolibianakis et al., 2011; Hossein Rashidi et al., 2015; Depalo et al., 2018).

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Forest plots of relative risk from the pairwise meta-analyses for achievement of ongoing pregnancy in women. (A) Forest plots of RR for achievement of pregnancy in women undergoing COS using a fixed or flexible GnRH antagonist protocol. (B) Forest plots of RR for achievement of pregnancy in women undergoing COS using OCP pretreatment versus no pretreatment GnRH antagonist protocol. Weights are from random effects model. OCP, oral contraceptive pill; REML, restricted maximum likelihood method; RR, relative risk; COS, controlled ovarian stimulation.

Two RCTs were included for the comparison of cetrorelix versus ganirelix (Wilcox et al., 2005; Kars et al., 2007). Only one of the RCTs reported on LBR (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.62 to 3.06) (Kars et al., 2007); therefore, a meta-analysis could not be performed. Neither of the studies reported on OPR. Publication bias could not be assessed owing to the small number of studies.

Fourteen trials reporting on pretreatment versus no pretreatment were included (Fanchin et al., 2003; Huirne et al., 2006a; Kolibianakis et al., 2006; Rombauts et al., 2006; Cédrin-Durnerin et al., 2007; Andersen et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2011; Vilela et al., 2011; Blockeel et al., 2012; Cédrin-Durnerin et al., 2012; Hauzman et al., 2013; Erdem et al., 2015; Shahrokh Tehrani Nejad et al., 2018; Fernandez-Prada et al., 2022). OPR was lower with OCP pretreatment compared with no pretreatment (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.97 I2 = 0%; 5 RCTs, n = 1318 participants; low certainty evidence) (Fig. 2B) (Huirne et al., 2006a; Kolibianakis et al., 2006; Rombauts et al., 2006; Andersen et al., 2011; Fernandez-Prada et al., 2022). Publication bias could not be detected using either the Harbord test (beta: −0.41, P = 0.691) or by inspecting the funnel plot. The pool of RCTs included in the sensitivity analysis was identical, as all trials were considered to have adequate randomization. Two studies reported data for OPR for E2 versus no pretreatment (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.93; I2 = 25.2%; 2 RCTs; n = 172 participants; very low certainty evidence) (Erdem et al., 2015; Fernandez-Prada et al., 2022). No data were available for progestin versus no pretreatment. There was no statistical difference in LBR following pretreatment with OCP versus no pretreatment (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.54; I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs; n = 199 participants; low certainty evidence) (Cédrin-Durnerin et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2011), E2 versus no pretreatment (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.16 I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs; n = 585 participants; moderate certainty evidence) (Cédrin-Durnerin et al., 2007, 2012; Fernandez-Prada et al., 2022) or progestin versus no pretreatment (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.22; I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs; n = 416 participants; moderate certainty evidence) (Cédrin-Durnerin et al., 2007, 2012).

For comparisons among different pretreatment regimens, there was no significant difference in live birth for E2 versus OCP (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.39; I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs; n = 214 participants; low certainty evidence) (Cédrin-Durnerin et al., 2007; Hauzman et al., 2013; Fernandez-Prada et al., 2022) or progestin versus E2 (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.39; I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs; n = 418 participants; low certainty evidence) (Cédrin-Durnerin et al., 2007; 2012). Only one study reported on progestin versus OCP (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.41 to 5.60; I2 = 0%; 1 RCT; n = 44 participants; low certainty evidence) (Cédrin-Durnerin et al., 2007). For OPR, there was no significant difference for E2 versus OCP (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.38; I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs; n = 171 participants; low certainty evidence) (Hauzman et al., 2013; Fernandez-Prada et al., 2022). Only one study compared the NuvaRing with the OCP and no statistically significant difference in OPR was reported (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.90, I2 = 0%; 1 RCT; n = 79 participants) (Karande et al., 2007). Publication bias could not be detected for any of these comparisons, either by using the Harbord test or by inspecting the funnel plot. There were insufficient data to perform pairwise meta-analyses among other combinations of pretreatments.

Secondary outcomes (pairwise meta-analysis)

There was no significant difference in the number of oocytes retrieved with a flexible protocol compared with a fixed protocol (WMD 2.12 oocytes, 95% CI −0.58 to 4.83; 7 RCTs; n = 961 participants; I2 = 93.8%; very low certainty evidence) (Ludwig et al., 2002; Escudero et al., 2004; Mochtar, 2004; Kolibianakis et al., 2011; Hossein Rashidi et al., 2015; Depalo et al., 2018; Luo et al., 2021). No differences were reported for the other secondary outcomes (Table I).

Table I.

Summary of pairwise meta-analyses for the relative risk of secondary endpoints following controlled ovarian stimulation with different GnRH antagonist protocols.

Protocol Outcome Studies Parameter estimate Evidence quality
Flexible versus fixed Clinical pregnancy Ludwig, 2002; Escudero, 2004; Mochtar, 2004; Hossein Rashidi, 2015; Luo, 2021 RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.04 I 2 = 0%; n = 657 participants; low-quality evidence (four used ultrasound only as criterion for antagonist; one used ultrasound and hormonal monitoring); low certainty assessment
OHSS moderate-to-severe NA NA No data available
First trimester clinical miscarriage Ludwig, 2002; Mochtar, 2004; Hossein Rashidi, 2015; Luo, 2021 RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.28 to 8.23 I 2 = 0%; n = 548 participants; low-quality evidence (three used ultrasound only as criterion for antagonist; one used ultrasound and hormonal monitoring); very low certainty assessment
Duration of stimulation (days) Ludwig, 2002; Escudero, 2004; Mochtar, 2004; Kolibianakis, 2011; Hossein Rashidi, 2015; Depalo, 2018; Luo, 2021 WMD –0.25, 95% CI –0.71 to 0.21 I 2 = 70.6%; n = 995 participants; low-quality evidence (four used ultrasound only as criterion for antagonist; three used ultrasound or hormonal monitoring); very low certainty assessment
Total dose of FSH (IU) Ludwig, 2002; Escudero, 2004; Mochtar, 2004; Kolibianakis, 2011; Luo, 2021 WMD 16.49, 95% CI –84.27 to 117.25 I 2 = 0%; n = 693 participants; low-quality evidence (three used ultrasound only as criterion for antagonist; two used ultrasound or hormonal monitoring); low certainty assessment
Number of oocytes retrieved Ludwig, 2002; Escudero, 2004; Mochtar, 2004; Kolibianakis, 2011; Hossein Rashidi, 2015; Depalo, 2018; Luo, 2021 WMD 2.12, 95% CI −0.58 to 4.83 I 2 = 93.8%; n = 961 participants; low-quality evidence (four used ultrasound only as criterion for antagonist; three used ultrasound or hormonal monitoring); very low certainty assessment
Ganirelix versus cetrorelix Clinical pregnancy Wilcox, 2005; Kars, 2007 RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.20 to 4.93 I 2 = 0%; n = 258 participants; low-quality evidence; very low certainty assessment
OHSS moderate-to-severe NA NA No data available
First trimester clinical miscarriage NA NA No data available
Duration of stimulation (days) NA NA No data available
Total dose of FSH (IU) NA NA No data available
Number of oocytes retrieved NA NA No data available
OCP pretreatment versus no pretreatment Clinical pregnancy Huirne et al., 2006a; Cédrin-Durnerin, 2007; Andersen, 2011; Kim, 2011; Shahrokh Tehrani Nejad, 2018; Fernandez-Prada, 2022 RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.01 I 2 = 0%; n = 845 participants; low-quality evidence; moderate certainty assessment
OHSS moderate-to-severe Huirne et al., 2006a; Rombauts, 2006; Andersen, 2011; Shahrokh Tehrani Nejad, 2018; Fernandez-Prada, 2022 RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.82 I 2 = 0%; n = 954 participants; low-quality evidence; very low certainty assessment
First trimester clinical miscarriage Huirne et al., 2006a; Andersen, 2011; Fernandez-Prada, 2022 RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.03 to 10.23 I 2 = 26.4%; n = 580 participants; low-quality evidence; very low certainty assessment
Duration of stimulation (days) Huirne et al., 2006a; Kolibianakis, 2006; Rombauts, 2006; Cédrin-Durnerin, 2007; Kim, 2011; Vilela, 2011; Shahrokh Tehrani Nejad, 2018; Fernandez-Prada, 2022 WMD 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.81 I 2 = 95.9%; n = 1,223 participants; low-quality evidence; very low certainty assessment
Total dose of FSH (IU) Huirne et al., 2006a; Kolibianakis, 2006; Rombauts, 2006; Cédrin-Durnerin, 2007; Kim, 2011; Vilela, 2011; Fernandez-Prada, 2022 WMD 289.43, 95% CI –115.18 to 694.05 I 2 = 94.6%; n = 1,100 participants; low-quality evidence; very low certainty assessment
Oocytes retrieved Huirne et al., 2006a; Kolibianakis, 2006; Rombauts, 2006; Cédrin-Durnerin, 2007; Andersen, 2011; Kim, 2011; Vilela, 2011; Shahrokh Tehrani Nejad, 2018; Fernandez-Prada, 2022 WMD 0.29, 95% CI –1.07 to 1.65 I 2 = 66.8%; n = 1,631 participants; low-quality evidence; low certainty assessment
E2 pretreatment versus no pretreatment Clinical pregnancy Fanchin, 2003; Cédrin-Durnerin, 2007, 2012; Blockeel, 2012; Erdem, 2015; Shahrokh Tehrani Nejad, 2018; Fernandez-Prada, 2022 RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.24 I 2 = 0%; n = 1,006 participants; low-quality evidence; moderate certainty assessment
OHSS moderate-to-severe Blockeel, 2012; Shahrokh Tehrani Nejad, 2018; Fernandez-Prada, 2022 RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.20 I 2 = 0%; n = 293 participants; low-quality evidence; very low certainty assessment
First trimester clinical miscarriage Erdem, 2015; Fernandez-Prada, 2022 RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.76 I 2 = 0%; n = 172 participants; low-quality evidence; very low certainty assessment
Duration of stimulation (days) Fanchin, 2003; Cédrin-Durnerin, 2007, 2012; Blockeel, 2012; Shahrokh Tehrani Nejad, 2018; Fernandez-Prada, 2022 WMD 0.60, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.16 I 2 = 89.5%; n = 844 participants; low-quality evidence; very low certainty assessment
Total dose of FSH (IU) Fanchin, 2003; Cédrin-Durnerin, 2007, 2012; Blockeel, 2012; Fernandez-Prada, 2022 WMD 192.73, 95% CI 140.22 to 245.23 I 2 = 4.6%; n = 711 participants; low-quality evidence; low certainty assessment
Oocytes retrieved Cédrin-Durnerin, 2007, 2012; Blockeel, 2012; Erdem, 2015; Shahrokh Tehrani Nejad, 2018; Fernandez-Prada, 2022 WMD 0.39, 95% CI −0.32 to 1.09 I 2 = 0%; n = 851 participants; low-quality evidence; low certainty assessment
Progestin pretreatment versus no pretreatment Clinical pregnancy Cédrin-Durnerin, 2007, 2012 RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.16 to 4.24 I 2 = 0%; n = 416 participants; low-quality evidence; low certainty assessment
OHSS moderate-to-severe NA NA No data available
First trimester clinical miscarriage NA NA No data available
Duration of stimulation (days) Cédrin-Durnerin, 2007, 2012 WMD 0.24, 95% CI −1.02 to 1.49 I 2 = 0%; n = 392 participants; low-quality evidence; low certainty assessment
Total dose of FSH (IU) Cédrin-Durnerin, 2007, 2012 WMD 138.12, 95% CI −287.06 to 563.30 I 2 = 0%; n = 392 participants; low-quality evidence; low certainty assessment
Oocytes retrieved Cédrin-Durnerin, 2007, 2012 WMD 0.99, 95% CI –6.22 to 8.20 I 2 = 0%; n = 392 participants; low-quality evidence; very low certainty assessment
E2 pretreatment versus OCP pretreatment Clinical pregnancy Cédrin-Durnerin, 2007; Hauzman, 2013; Shahrokh Tehrani Nejad, 2018; Fernandez-Prada, 2022 RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.61 I 2 = 0%; n = 354 participants; moderate quality evidence; low certainty assessment
OHSS moderate-to-severe Shahrokh Tehrani Nejad, 2018; Fernandez-Prada, 2022 RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.32 to 3.74 I 2 = 0%; n = 211 participants; low-quality evidence; very low certainty assessment
First trimester clinical miscarriage Hauzman, 2013; Fernandez-Prada, 2022 RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.00 to 16 178.76 I 2 = 0%; n = 171 participants; low-quality evidence; low certainty assessment
Duration of stimulation (days) Cédrin-Durnerin, 2007; Hauzman, 2013; Shahrokh Tehrani Nejad, 2018; Fernandez-Prada, 2022 WMD −0.03, 95% CI –1.02 to 0.97 I 2 = 72.7%; n = 318 participants; low-quality evidence; very low certainty assessment
Total dose of FSH (IU) Cédrin-Durnerin, 2007; Hauzman, 2013; Fernandez-Prada, 2022 WMD –133.61, 95% CI −802.07 to 534.84 I 2 = 68.6%; n = 202 participants; low-quality evidence; low certainty assessment
Oocytes retrieved Cédrin-Durnerin, 2007; Hauzman, 2013; Shahrokh Tehrani Nejad, 2018; Fernandez-Prada, 2022 WMD 0.17, 95% CI –0.41 to 0.75 I 2 = 0%; n = 318 participants; moderate quality evidence; low certainty assessment
Progestin pretreatment versus E2 pretreatment Clinical pregnancy Cédrin-Durnerin, 2007, 2012 RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.06 to 16.90 I 2 = 16.2%; n = 418 participants; low-quality evidence; very low certainty assessment
OHSS moderate-to-severe NA NA No data available
First trimester clinical miscarriage NA NA No data available
Duration of stimulation (days) Cédrin-Durnerin, 2007, 2012 WMD −0.07, 95% CI –7.05 to 6.91 I 2 = 92.1%; n = 403 participants; low-quality evidence; very low certainty assessment
Total dose of FSH (IU) Cédrin-Durnerin, 2007, 2012 WMD 92.68, 95% CI –2048.57 to 2233.92 I 2 = 71.5%; n = 403 participants; low-quality evidence; very low certainty assessment
Oocytes retrieved Cédrin-Durnerin, 2007, 2012 WMD 0.05, 95% CI −1.99 to 2.10 I 2 = 0%; n = 403 participants; low-quality evidence; low certainty assessment
Progestin pretreatment versus OCP pretreatment Clinical pregnancy NA NA Only one study
OHSS moderate-to-severe NA NA No data available
First trimester clinical miscarriage NA NA No data available
Duration of stimulation (days) NA NA Only one study
Total dose of FSH (IU) NA NA Only one study
Oocytes retrieved NA NA Only one study
Open in a new tab

E2, oestradiol; NA, not available; OCP, oral contraceptive pill; OHSS, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome; RCT, randomized controlled trial; RR, relative risk; WMD, weighted mean difference.

There was no difference in CPR between cetrorelix and ganirelix (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.20 to 4.93; 2 RCTs; n = 258 participants; I2 = 0%; very low certainty evidence) (Wilcox et al., 2005; Kars et al., 2007). No data were available for analysis of the other secondary outcomes (Table I).

Pretreatment with OCP was associated with a non-significant difference in the duration of stimulation compared with no pretreatment (WMD 0.66 days, 95% CI −0.48 to 1.81; 8 RCTs; n = 1223 participants; I2 = 95.9%; very low certainty evidence) (Huirne et al., 2006a; Kolibianakis et al., 2006; Rombauts et al., 2006; Cédrin-Durnerin et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2011; Vilela et al., 2011; Shahrokh Tehrani Nejad et al., 2018; Fernandez-Prada et al., 2022) and no significant difference in the mean total dose of gonadotrophins compared with no pretreatment (WMD 289.43 IU, 95% CI −115.18 to 694.05; 7 RCTs; n = 1100 participants; I2 = 94.6%; very low certainty evidence) (Huirne et al., 2006a; Kolibianakis et al., 2006; Rombauts et al., 2006; Cédrin-Durnerin et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2011; Vilela et al., 2011; Fernandez-Prada et al., 2022). Progestin pretreatment was not associated with a significantly higher mean total dose of gonadotrophins compared with no pretreatment (WMD 138.12 IU, 95% CI −287.06 to 563.30; 2 RCTs; n = 392 participants; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence) (Cédrin-Durnerin et al., 2007, 2012). However, E2 pretreatment compared with no pretreatment was associated with significantly higher mean total dose of gonadotrophins (WMD 192.73 IU, 95% CI 140.22 to 245.23; 5 RCTs; 711 participants; I2 = 4.6%; low certainty evidence) (Fanchin et al., 2003; Cédrin-Durnerin et al., 2007; Blockeel et al., 2012; Cédrin-Durnerin et al., 2012; Fernandez-Prada et al., 2022). No significant difference in the number of oocytes retrieved was detected between E2 pretreatment compared with no pretreatment (WMD 0.39 oocytes, 95% CI −0.32 to 1.09; 6 RCTs; n = 851 participants; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence) (Cédrin-Durnerin et al., 2007; Blockeel et al., 2012; Cédrin-Durnerin et al., 2012; Erdem et al., 2015; Shahrokh Tehrani Nejad et al., 2018; Fernandez-Prada et al., 2022). No difference was reported or there were insufficient data for pairwise meta-analyses of the remaining comparisons (Table II).

Table II.

Summary of network meta-analyses for the relative risk of pregnancy outcomes following controlled ovarian stimulation with different GnRH antagonist protocols (compared with fixed-no pretreatment).

Treatment Studies N participants Relative risk, 95% CI (evidence quality)

  • Live birth

  • 15 RCTs

  • n = 3008

 flexible-NP Badrawi, 2005; Karabacak, 2006; Cédrin-Durnerin, 2007; Kim 2011; Xu, 2020; Fernandez-Prada, 2022 456 0.84, 0.57 to 1.25 (low-quality evidence)
flexible-OCP Barmat et al., 2005; Cédrin-Durnerin, 2007; Kurzawa, 2008; Kim, 2011; Hauzman, 2013; Fernandez-Prada, 2022 227 0.86, 0.55 to 1.34 (low-quality evidence)
flexible-E2 Cédrin-Durnerin, 2007; Ye et al., 2009; Hauzman, 2013; Fernandez-Prada, 2022 213 0.81, 0.52 to 1.28 (low-quality evidence)
fixed-P Cédrin-Durnerin, 2012 135 0.87, 0.60 to 1.24 (low-quality evidence)
fixed-E2 Cédrin-Durnerin, 2012 238 0.92, 0.69 to 1.24 (low-quality evidence)
flexible-P Cédrin-Durnerin, 2007 23 0.96, 0.35 to 2.61 (low-quality evidence)
fixed-OCP Garcia-Velasco et al., 2011; Huirne et al., 2006b 206 0.95, 0.62 to 1.47 (low-quality evidence)

  • Ongoing pregnancy

  • 43 RCTs

  • n = 8319

 flexible-E2 Hauzman 2013; Erdem, 2015; Ye et al., 2009; Fernandez-Prada, 2022 243 0.81, 0.62 to 1.06 (low-quality evidence)
fixed-OCP Cheung et al., 2005; Huirne et al., 2006a,b; Kolibianakis, 2006; Andersen, 2011; Garcia Velasco, 2011 744 0.84, 0.71 to 0.99 (moderate quality evidence)
flexible-NP Ludwig, 2002; Check et al., 2004; Mochtar, 2004; Marci et al., 2005; Rombauts, 2006; Baart et al., 2007; Fornaro et al., 2007; Pabuccu et al., 2007; Tazegül et al., 2008; Sbracia et al., 2009; Tehraninejad et al., 2009, 2011; Kolibianakis, 2011; Rabati and Zeidi, 2012; Sunkara et al., 2014; Erdem, 2015; Hossein Rashidi, 2015; Depalo, 2018; Luo, 2021; Fernandez-Prada, 2022 1571 0.85, 0.73 to 1.00 (moderate quality evidence)
flexible-OCP Bahçeci et al., 2005; Barmat et al., 2005; Rombauts, 2006; Kurzawa, 2008; Lainas et al., 2010; Tehraninejad et al., 2010; Haydardedeoglu et al., 2012; Hauzman, 2013; Fernandez-Prada, 2022 664 0.91, 0.76 to 1.08 (low-quality evidence)

  • Clinical pregnancy

  • 61 RCTs

  • n = 9623

 flexible-P Cédrin-Durnerin, 2007 23 0.68, 0.33 to 1.38 (low-quality evidence)
fixed-OCP Cheung et al., 2005; Huirne et al., 2006a,b; Andersen, 2011; Garcia Velasco, 2011; Prapas, 2013; Shin, 2018 687 0.76, 0.64 to 0.90 (moderate quality evidence)
flexible-NP Ludwig, 2002; Fanchin, 2003; Check et al., 2004; Escudero, 2004; Loutradis et al., 2004; Mochtar, 2004; Badrawi, 2005; Marci et al., 2005; Xavier et al., 2005; Ferrari et al., 2006; Friedler et al., 2006; Karabacak, 2006; Serafini et al., 2006; Cédrin-Durnerin, 2007; Pabuccu et al., 2007; Tazegül et al., 2008; Sbracia et al., 2009; Tehraninejad et al., 2009, 2011; Al-Karaki et al., 2011; Kim, 2011; Cota et al., 2012; Rabati and Zeidi, 2012; Erdem, 2015; Hossein Rashidi, 2015; Shahrokh Tehrani Nejad, 2018; Xu, 2020; Luo, 2021; Fernandez-Prada, 2022 2111 0.82, 0.72 to 0.94 (moderate quality evidence)
flexible-E2 Fanchin, 2003; Cédrin-Durnerin, 2007; Ye et al., 2009; Hauzman, 2013; Erdem, 2015; Klement et al., 2015; Shahrokh Tehrani Nejad, 2018; Fernandez-Prada, 2022 413 0.86, 0.70 to 1.05 (low-quality evidence)
fixed-P Cédrin-Durnerin, 2012 135 0.87, 0.63 to 1.19 (low-quality evidence)
flexible-OCP Bahçeci et al., 2005; Barmat et al., 2005; Cédrin-Durnerin, 2007; Moraloglu et al., 2008; Hosseini et al., 2010; Lainas et al., 2010; Tehraninejad et al., 2010; Kim, 2011; Hauzman, 2013; Mokhtar et al., 2015; Trenkić et al., 2016; Shahrokh Tehrani Nejad, 2018; Fernandez-Prada, 2022 688 0.90, 0.76 to 1.06 (low-quality evidence)
fixed-E2 Blockeel, 2012; Cédrin-Durnerin, 2012 282 0.98, 0.78 to 1.23 (low-quality evidence)
Open in a new tab

Comparisons versus Fixed-NP: relative risk (RR) <1 favours the reference. E2, oestradiol; NP, no pretreatment; OCP, oral contraceptive pill; P, progestin; RCT, randomized controlled trial.

Exploratory analyses

Based on the available data for flexible versus fixed protocols, analyses were performed for the following subgroups: population (high/normal/low responders), antagonist (ganirelix versus cetrorelix) and criteria for initiating the antagonist protocol (ultrasound only, hormonal monitoring only or both). OPR was not significantly different for flexible protocols compared with fixed protocols when ultrasound only was used as the criterion for initiation of flexible protocols (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.32; I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs; n = 344 participants; moderate quality evidence) (Ludwig et al., 2002; Mochtar, 2004; Hossein Rashidi et al., 2015) or when ultrasound and/or hormonal measurement was the criterion for initiation of the flexible protocol (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.14; I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs; n = 563 participants; low-quality evidence) (Supplementary Table SVII) (Kolibianakis et al., 2011; Depalo et al., 2018; Luo et al., 2021). No significant differences in effect sizes between the subgroups were observed (P = 0.480). No difference was reported or there were insufficient data for analyses for the other subpopulation subgroups (Supplementary Table SVII).

Subgroup analyses were not possible for cetrorelix versus ganirelix owing to insufficient data for all subpopulations.

Based on the available data, analyses for the following subgroups were performed for the comparison of pretreatment versus no pretreatment: population (normal/unselected), fixed versus flexible antagonist protocol, type of antagonist (iturelix, ganirelix or cetrorelix) and OCP-free interval (0 to 3 days versus 4 to 5 days). There was a significantly lower OPR with an OCP-free interval of 4–5 days compared with no pretreatment (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.99; I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs; n = 1020 participants; low-quality evidence) (Huirne et al., 2006a; Kolibianakis et al., 2006; Andersen et al., 2011). A statistically significant difference in OPR was not detected with an OCP-free interval 0–3 days when comparing OCP versus no OCP pretreatment (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.07 to 7.18; I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs; n = 298 participants; low-quality evidence) (Huirne et al., 2006a; Rombauts et al., 2006). Importantly, no significant differences in effect sizes between the subgroups were observed (P = 0.647). A lower OPR was seen in studies that used ganirelix with OCP pretreatment compared with those that used ganirelix without OCP pretreatment (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.96; I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs; n = 1,180 participants; low-quality evidence) (Kolibianakis et al., 2006; Rombauts et al., 2006; Andersen et al., 2011). No data were available for the comparison of cetrorelix with and without pretreatment and only one study reported on studies using either cetrorelix or ganirelix (Fernandez-Prada et al., 2022). There was no difference or there were insufficient data for analysis of the remaining outcomes in the subpopulations (Supplementary Table SVII).

Network meta-analysis

Nine interventions (protocol variations) were considered: agonist; flexible antagonist no pretreatment (flexible-NP); flexible antagonist OCP pretreatment (flexible-OCP); flexible antagonist E2 pretreatment (flexible-E2); flexible antagonist progestin (P) pretreatment (flexible-P); fixed antagonist no pretreatment (fixed-NP); fixed antagonist OCP pretreatment (fixed-OCP); fixed antagonist E2 pretreatment (fixed-E2); and fixed antagonist progestin pretreatment (fixed-P). None of the studies reported on all three outcomes of interest (LBR, OPR or CPR).

Overall, there was insufficient evidence of a difference between any protocol versus fixed-NP for LBR (15 RCTs; 3008 participants; all studies were of low quality) (Fig. 3A; Supplementary Fig. S1). The network meta-analysis for OPR included 43 RCTs (8319 participants). The use of a fixed-OCP protocol resulted in a significantly lower OPR compared with a fixed-NP protocol (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.99; moderate quality evidence) (Fig. 3B; Supplementary Fig. S1). The use of flexible-NP and fixed-NP protocols was not associated with significantly different OPRs; however, the upper boundary of the CI was just at 1.00 (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.00; moderate quality evidence) (Fig. 3B; Supplementary Fig. S1). The network meta-analysis for CPR included 61 RCTs (9623 participants). Overall, the use of a fixed-OCP intervention or flexible-NP intervention resulted in a significantly lower CPR compared with a fixed-NP protocol (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.90, moderate quality evidence; RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.94; moderate quality evidence, respectively) (Fig. 3C; Supplementary Fig. S1). For all outcomes, the SUCRA scores suggested that the fixed-NP protocol was likely to be the optimal GnRH antagonist protocol (68% for LBR, 84% for OPR and 84% for CPR) (Fig. 4). There was no evidence of global inconsistency for LBR (P = 0.6991), OPR (P = 0.6890) or clinical pregnancy (P = 0.4898) in the studies included in the network meta-analysis. Local inconsistency was observed in the comparison of flexible-NP versus flexible-P for CPR (P = 0.009); however, there was no evidence of local inconsistency for LBR or OPR.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Forest plots of relative risk from the network meta-analyses for pregnancy outcomes in women. (A) Forest plots of RR for achievement of live birth in women when undergoing COS using different GnRH antagonist protocols. (B) Forest plots of RR for achievement of ongoing pregnancy in women when undergoing COS using different GnRH antagonist protocols. (C) Forest plots of RR for achievement of clinical pregnancy in women when undergoing COS using different GnRH antagonist protocols. Ago, agonist; E2, oestradiol; NP, no pretreatment; OCP, oral contraceptive pill; P, progestin; RR, relative risk; COS, controlled ovarian stimulation.

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Open in a new tab

SUCRA scores for the network meta-analyses which are used to quantify GnRH antagonist treatment ranking. The higher the value of the SUCRA, the more superior the treatment type. (A) SUCRA scores for the achievement of live birth in women undergoing COS using different GnRH antagonist protocols. (B) SUCRA scores for the achievement of ongoing pregnancy in women undergoing COS using different GnRH antagonist protocols. (C) SUCRA scores for the achievement of clinical pregnancy in women undergoing COS using different GnRH antagonist protocols. Ant, antagonist; E2, oestradiol; NP, no pretreatment; OCP, oral contraceptive pill; P, progestin; SUCRA, surface under the cumulative ranking curve (on Y-axes); COS, controlled ovarian stimulation.

The sensitivity analysis showed reduced chances of LBR or OPR for flexible versus fixed protocols across all scenarios where data were available, although most findings were not statistically significant. An exception to this was in the scenario of ganirelix with no pretreatment, where the CPR was lower in a flexible protocol compared with the fixed protocol (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.92; 11 RCTs; n = 1907 participants) (Supplementary Table SVIII). No other effect sizes were found to be statistically significantly different (Supplementary Table SIX).

Discussion

Overall, the results of the pairwise meta-analysis showed that there was a lower OPR following a flexible protocol compared with a fixed Day 5/6 protocol, and after OCP pretreatment compared with no pretreatment. The network meta-analysis showed that the use of the fixed-OCP protocol resulted in a significantly lower OPR compared with the fixed-NP protocol, and a flexible-NP protocol may result in a numerically lower OPR compared with the fixed-NP protocol; however, this was not statistically significant. By comparing all available protocols, the SUCRA score suggested that the fixed-NP protocol is most likely to result in the highest OPR. While we have tried to account for commonly encountered variations in the flexible protocols in this meta-analysis, there is extensive heterogeneity among the criteria used to initiate the flexible antagonist protocols, which may have had an effect on our results for the comparison of fixed versus flexible protocols for OPR. Furthermore, all studies included in this analysis were of low-to-moderate quality and therefore the results should be interpreted with caution.

Fixed versus flexible

There were no data available for live birth from studies directly comparing flexible and fixed protocols. A lower OPR was reported with the use of flexible protocols compared with fixed protocols. Five out of six studies used a fixed Day 6 protocol and only one study (Luo et al., 2021) used a Day 5 fixed start; however, there was no difference between the subgroups in terms of the effect sizes. The finding of lower OPR with the flexible protocol with no pretreatment was also suggested by the network meta-analysis, however the 95% CI in the network meta-analysis included 1.00 (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.00). It should be noted, however, that the included studies had a mixture of patient populations, antagonists and, importantly, heterogeneous criteria for initiating the antagonist (Supplementary Table SVI). In a fixed protocol, GnRH antagonist administration is usually started on Day 5 or 6 of COS during ART treatment, whereas more variable criteria are used in flexible protocols based on ultrasound only criteria (at least one follicle with a diameter of 14 or 15 mm) or on ultrasound and/or hormonal criteria (at least one dominant follicle with a diameter of >12, ≥14 or ≥15 mm, serum E2 per dominant follicle at a level of >150 or >200 pg/ml and/or serum LH level ≥10 IU/l) (Ludwig et al., 2002; Escudero et al., 2004; Mochtar, 2004; Kolibianakis et al., 2011; Hossein Rashidi et al., 2015; Depalo et al., 2018; Luo et al., 2021).

Differences in the criteria used may affect the reproductive outcomes and influence comparisons among not only the fixed and flexible protocols, but also among different flexible protocols (Lyttle Schumacher et al., 2018). In view of recent data suggesting that a high serum E2 level could result in a decline in pregnancy rates, it is possible that initiating a GnRH antagonist too late in a fresh ART embryo transfer cycle may result in decreased receptivity of the endometrium or over-maturation of the oocytes, leading to decreased oocyte yield and lower pregnancy outcomes (Hernandez, 2000). Similarly, if a GnRH antagonist was initiated at a serum E2 level of <300 pg/ml, this early GnRH antagonist administration might directly impact the mitotic programming of cells involved in folliculogenesis, resulting in a decrease or an impaired increase in serum E2 levels during COS in the context of ART (Al-Inany et al., 2016) or may interfere with endometrial development and implantation (Hernandez, 2000).

It should also be considered that there may be individual variations in patient response to COS. Notably, antagonist initiation in flexible protocols may occur before (although this is rare) or after the fixed Day 5/6, which means that patients may be at risk of a premature LH rise/surge if they have a fast ovarian response and the antagonist initiation is delayed for too long (Albano et al., 2000; Borm and Mannaerts, 2000; Olivennes et al., 2000; European and Middle East Orgalutran Study Group, 2001; Fluker et al., 2001; Ludwig et al., 2002; Mochtar, 2004) or the antagonist may be initiated too soon in patients with a slow response to gonadotrophin treatment (Tannus et al., 2013; Ozturk Inal et al., 2018). Future trials need to investigate the optimal timing and modality of monitoring ovarian response as well as the criteria for initiating the antagonist in the flexible protocol, since different criteria for the flexible protocol might lead to comparable results to the fixed protocol.

Cetrorelix versus ganirelix

The current systematic review and network meta-analysis did not provide evidence of a difference between cetrorelix and ganirelix in terms of LBR or OPR. More specifically, only one study reported LBR, suggesting no statistically significant difference, and no studies reported OPR. Furthermore, there was a lack of data regarding other secondary outcome measures. This lack of data precluded a formal network meta-analysis (since cetrorelix and ganirelix were considered equivalent). In theory, the different pharmacokinetic profiles (Duijkers et al., 1998; Huirne and Lambalk, 2001; Tur-Kaspa and Ezcurra, 2009) of the two antagonists could lead to a clinical difference; however, until further evidence from properly designed RCTs is available, a clinical difference between cetrorelix and ganirelix cannot be supported based on the limited number of currently published RCTs.

Hormonal pretreatment

Several pretreatment regimens were assessed in the pairwise meta-analysis (E2, OCP and progestin) compared with no pretreatment or placebo. The direct pairwise comparison and the network meta-analysis failed to detect a significant difference in LBR between the different pretreatment regimens versus no pretreatment and between the different pretreatment protocols. However, there were a limited number of relevant RCTs that provided live birth data (two or fewer for all comparisons) and most studies were small in size. In the pairwise meta-analysis, a significantly lower OPR after pretreatment with the OCP compared with no pretreatment was observed, and the sensitivity analysis did not alter this result. These results are in agreement with those of Griesinger et al., whose meta-analysis reported a 5% (95% CI −10% to −1%) lower OPR in women receiving OCP compared with those with no pretreatment (Griesinger et al., 2010). Although the OCP is regularly used to schedule the start of IVF treatment, remnant adverse effects have been reported for the subsequent fresh embryo transfer cycle, which includes lower serum levels of LH and E2, and lower endometrial thickness in women with OCP-induced menses compared with those with spontaneous menses or progestin-induced menses (Wei et al., 2017), as well as low serum LH levels that persisted from the beginning of COS for IVF until the day of hCG trigger (Kolibianakis et al., 2006). An adverse effect of OCP treatment on LBR following freeze-all or frozen embryo transfers has also been shown, which has led to speculation that the remnant effect of using the OCP for scheduling endometrial preparation alone may be enough to negatively affect endometrial receptivity or the ensuing pregnancy rate (Wei et al., 2017).

While it is thought that endogenous gonadotrophin secretion recovers within 5 days of OCP cessation (Cédrin-Durnerin et al., 2007), the detrimental effects on conception may persist after discontinuation, although a review of the literature reported no difference in conception rates at 12 months after cessation from those seen for other contraceptive methods (Barnhart and Schreiber, 2009). Our own subgroup analyses of the pretreatment-free interval did not detect a statistically significant difference in the effect sizes between the two subgroups (0–3 days versus 4–5 days), although all these comparisons were based on a small number of RCTs and low-quality evidence. There were no data for treatment-free periods of >6 days.

Regarding pretreatment with E2 (Cédrin-Durnerin et al., 2012) or progestin (Wei et al., 2017), it has been supported that they do not confer a negative effect on pregnancy rates similar to that observed with OCP pretreatment. The present pairwise and network meta-analysis did not provide statistical evidence of a negative effect of E2 or progestin pretreatments on pregnancy rates. However, it did not also provide conclusive evidence of no difference, as the RRs for LBRs were <0.90 in both cases. It should be noted though that the number of available studies was limited. The network meta-analysis also failed to provide evidence of E2 or progestin pretreatments being preferable to OCP and this is reflected in the SUCRA scores where protocols including E2 and progestin pretreatment did not consistently have higher SUCRA scores compared to protocols with OCP pretreatment (Fig. 4).

Limitations

It should be acknowledged that there are some limitations in this analysis. As with any pairwise meta-analysis, the quality of the eventual output is determined by the quality of the primary studies. All studies included in this analysis were of low-to-moderate quality. For this reason, only RCTs evaluating the research question of interest were included. Furthermore, a sensitivity analysis with the exclusion of RCTs for which the randomization method was unclear was also performed. The presence of heterogeneity was quantified and explored based on predefined parameters using subgroup analyses although, in many cases, these analyses were underpowered owing to the lack of data. Another potential limitation is that this analysis was based on data from RCTs, which have strict inclusion/exclusion criteria and may not be representative of the patient populations typically undergoing ART treatment (Hershkop et al., 2017). Therefore, real-world data are required to confirm the results of this analysis. In addition, our analysis only included fresh embryo transfer cycles, as only two small, recently published RCTs comparing different antagonist protocols reported data on cumulative pregnancy rates (Luo et al., 2021; Fernandez-Prada et al., 2022). Therefore, future studies reporting cumulative outcomes of frozen embryo transfer are needed, as certain outcomes can either be limited to fresh embryo transfers or persist through an effect on the embryo quality or a persistent effect on the endometrium. Furthermore, the number of studies used for each outcome analysis was relatively small, which could lead to biased estimation of heterogeneity (I2) (von Hippel, 2015).

The use of indirect data for the assessment of specific interventions has been proposed in the last few years and, although it has been shown to be a valuable and valid approach, it is also characterized by well-known limitations, meaning pairwise meta-analyses are always superior to analyses using indirect data. Most importantly, the feasibility of combining a network of studies performing different comparisons is based on the fundamental assumption of transitivity. This means that the studies that are indirectly pooled are essentially performed in similar populations using similar methodological and clinical characteristics. These limitations were considered during the interpretation of all results obtained during this research project; there was no evidence of global or local inconsistency both for live birth and OPRs.

Implications for clinical practice and future research

Almost 20 years after the introduction of GnRH antagonists in clinical practice, a number of protocol variations have been proposed and are being used worldwide. In view of the efficacy and safety data shown in this review, a fixed Day 5/6 GnRH antagonist protocol without any pretreatment appears to be the optimal protocol among women undergoing COS during ART treatment using GnRH antagonists. The fixed Day 5/6 GnRH antagonist protocol without any pretreatment appears to lead to better reproductive outcomes compared with a flexible antagonist protocol based on ultrasound monitoring only or using antagonist protocols with OCP pretreatment. It should, however, be noted that the studies included in this review included primarily normal responders or unselected populations and, therefore, there is not enough evidence to make recommendations specifically for poor responders or women with expected high response or PCOS.

High-quality research on the optimal criteria of a flexible protocol for antagonist initiation in low, normal and high responders is required. More trials are also required to assess the effectiveness of ganirelix versus cetrorelix, separately, as well as large trials that randomize women undergoing pretreatment with OCP, progestin or E2, and including women with high or low ovarian response. Pretreatment with progestin should be of particular interest for further research owing to the limited data currently available. Importantly, any such research needs to attempt to decipher how a potentially negative effect of these pretreatments is exerted.

Conclusion

The current systematic review and meta-analysis of direct and indirect randomized data suggests that it is likely that not all antagonist protocols are equivalent and that a fixed Day 5/6 antagonist protocol with no pretreatment might be associated with higher OPRs compared with other antagonist protocols for patients undergoing COS during ART treatment. However, as this analysis primarily included normal responders, there is insufficient evidence to make specific recommendations for poor responders or women with expected high response or PCOS. More trials are required to confirm these findings and also assess the comparative effectiveness of ganirelix versus cetrorelix, the effect of different pretreatment interventions or the effect of different criteria for initiation of the antagonist in the flexible protocol. Furthermore, more studies are required to examine the optimal GnRH antagonist protocol in women with high or low response to COS.

Supplementary Material

dmac040_Supplementary_Data
Click here for additional data file. (224KB, zip)

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr Rui Wang (Monash University) for contributing to the protocol and statistical analysis. The authors would also like to thank Dr Cedrin-Durnerin and colleagues as well as Dr Fernandez-Prada and colleagues for providing additional information regarding their research. Medical writing assistance was provided by Steven Goodrick of inScience Communications, Springer Healthcare Ltd, UK and funded by Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.

Authors’ roles

C.A.V., T.D.H. and S.L. conceived the idea of the study and worked out the study proposal. C.A.V. performed the literature search, drafted the protocol, interpreted the analysis and drafted the article. A.S. drafted the protocol, performed the study selection and data extraction, interpreted the analysis, drafted the report and critically revised the article for intellectual content. S.J.C. performed the study selection and data extraction, and critically revised the manuscript for intellectual content. S.L. and T.D.H. contributed to the study design, protocol revision, interpreted the results and critically revised the article. X.Y. performed a critical review of the statistical analysis methods and results and critically revised the article for intellectual content. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the article.

Funding

This study was funded by Merck (CrossRef Funder ID: 10.13039/100009945).

Conflict of interest

C.A.V. reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, personal fees and non-financial support from Merck, Sharpe and Dohme, grants and non-financial support from Ferring, personal fees from Besins, personal fees and non-financial support from Gedeon-Richter and grants and non-financial support from Abbott. C.A.V. was supported during this work by a NHMRC Early Career Fellowship (GNT1147154). B.W.M. has received investigator grant from NHMRC (GNT1176437), personal fees from ObsEva, personal fees and research support from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, personal fees and research support from Guerbet and personal fees from iGenomix. X.Y. is an employee of EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Inc., Billerica, MA, USA; a business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. S.L. is an employee of Merck Serono S.p.A., Rome, Italy, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. T.D.H. is an employee of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. S.J.C. and A.S. report no conflicts of interest.

Some of the data reported in this article were presented as an oral presentation at the Virtual 36th Annual Meeting of the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (2020).

Contributor Information

C A Venetis, University of New South Wales, Faculty of Medicine & Health, Centre for Big Data Research in Health & Discipline of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Sydney, Australia; IVFAustralia, Alexandria, NSW, Australia.

A Storr, Flinders Fertility, Adelaide, SA, Australia; College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.

S J Chua, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Australia.

B W Mol, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.

S Longobardi, Global Clinical Development, Merck Serono S.p.A, Rome, Italy, an affiliate of Merck KGaA.

X Yin, EMD Serono Inc., R&D Global Biostatistics, Epidemiology & Medical Writing, Billerica, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck KGaA.

T D’Hooghe, Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany; Department of Development and Regeneration, Laboratory of Endometrium, Endometriosis & Reproductive Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Yale University Medical School, New Haven, CT, USA.

Supplementary data

Supplementary data are available at Human Reproduction Update online.

Data availability

The data underlying this article will be shared upon reasonable request to the Corresponding Author.

References

  1. Albano C, Felberbaum RE, Smitz J, Riethmuller-Winzen H, Engel J, Diedrich K, Devroey P.. Ovarian stimulation with HMG: results of a prospective randomized phase III European study comparing the luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH)-antagonist cetrorelix and the LHRH-agonist buserelin. European Cetrorelix Study Group. Hum Reprod 2000;15:526–531. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Al-Karaki R, Irzouqi R, Khalifa F, Taher M, Sarraf M.. Effectiveness of flexible GnRH antagonist protocol versus minidose long GnRH agonist protocol in poor-responder patients undergoing IVF. Human Reproduction, Volume 26, Issue suppl_1, 2011, Page i47. [Google Scholar]
  3. Al-Inany H, Aboulghar MA, Mansour RT, Serour GI.. Optimizing GnRH antagonist administration: meta-analysis of fixed versus flexible protocol. Reprod Biomed Online 2005;10:567–570. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Al-Inany HG, Youssef MA, Ayeleke RO, Brown J, Lam WS, Broekmans FJ.. Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;4:CD001750. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Andersen AN, Witjes H, Gordon K, Mannaerts B; Xpect investigators. Predictive factors of ovarian response and clinical outcome after IVF/ICSI following a rFSH/GnRH antagonist protocol with or without oral contraceptive pre-treatment. Hum Reprod 2011;26:3413–3423. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Baart EB, Martini E, Eijkemans MJ, Van Opstal D, Beckers NGM, Verhoeff A, Macklon NS, Fauser BCJM.. Milder ovarian stimulation for in-vitro fertilization reduces aneuploidy in the human preimplantation embryo: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2007;22:980–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Badrawi A, Zaki S, Al‐Inany H, Ramzy AM, Hussein M.. Agonist versus antagonist in ICSI cycles: a randomized trial and cost effectiveness analysis. Middle East Fertility Society Journal, 2005;10, 49–54. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bahçeci M, Ulug U, Ben-Shlomo I, Erden HF, Akman MA.. Use of a GnRH antagonist in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for assisted conception in women with polycystic ovary disease: a randomized, prospective, pilot study. J Reprod Med 2005;50:84–90. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Barmat LI, Chantilis SJ, Hurst BS, Dickey RP.. A randomized prospective trial comparing gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist/recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) versus GnRH-agonist/rFSH in women pretreated with oral contraceptives before in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2005;83:321–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Barnhart KT, Schreiber CA.. Return to fertility following discontinuation of oral contraceptives. Fertil Steril 2009;91:659–663. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Batzofin J, Feinman M, Kolb B, Nelson J, Wilcox J, Norbryhn G.. An embryonic perspective of a comparative randomized study of Lupron/Follistim versus Follistim/Antagon in IVF. Fertil Steril 2002;78:S150. [Google Scholar]
  12. Blockeel C, Engels S, De Vos M, Haentjens P, Polyzos NP, Stoop D, Camus M, Devroey P.. Oestradiol valerate pretreatment in GnRH-antagonist cycles: a randomized controlled trial. Reprod Biomed Online 2012;24:272–280. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Borm G, Mannaerts B.. Treatment with the gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist ganirelix in women undergoing ovarian stimulation with recombinant follicle stimulating hormone is effective, safe and convenient: results of a controlled, randomized, multicentre trial. The European Orgalutran Study Group. Hum Reprod 2000;15:1490–1498. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Bosch E, Broer S, Griesinger G, Grynberg M, Humaidan P, Kolibianakis E, Kunicki M, La Marca A, Lainas G, Le Clef N. et al. ESHRE guideline: ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI. Hum Reprod Open 2020;2020:hoaa009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Cédrin-Durnerin I, Bständig B, Parneix I, Bied-Damon V, Avril C, Decanter C, Hugues JN.. Effects of oral contraceptive, synthetic progestogen or natural estrogen pre-treatments on the hormonal profile and the antral follicle cohort before GnRH antagonist protocol. Hum Reprod 2007;22:109–116. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Cédrin-Durnerin I, Guivarc'h-Levêque A, Hugues JN; Groupe d'Etude en Médecine et Endocrinologie de la Reproduction. Pretreatment with estrogen does not affect IVF-ICSI cycle outcome compared with no pretreatment in GnRH antagonist protocol: a prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril 2012;97:1359–1364.e1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Check ML, Check JH, Choel JK, Davies E, Kiefer D.. Effect of antagonists vs agonists on in vitro fertilization outcome. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2004;31:257–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Cheung L-P, Lam P-M, Lok IH, Chiu TT-Y, Yeung S-Y, Tjer C-C, Haines CJ.. GnRH antagonist versus long GnRH agonist protocol in poor responders undergoing IVF: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2005;20:616–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Cota AMM, Oliveira JBA, Petersen CG, Mauri AL, Massaro FC, Silva LFI, Nicoletti A, Cavagna M, Baruffi RLR, Franco Jr JG.. GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in assisted reproduction cycles: oocyte morphology. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2012;10:33. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd Edition. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons, 2019.
  21. Depalo R, Trerotoli P, Chincoli A, Vacca MP, Lamanna G, Cicinelli E.. Endogenous luteinizing hormone concentration and IVF outcome during ovarian stimulation in fixed versus flexible GnRH antagonist protocols: an RCT. Int J Reprod Biomed 2018;16:175–182. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Dias S, Welton NJ, Caldwell DM, Ades AE.. Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Stat Med 2010;29:932–944. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Duijkers IJ, Klipping C, Willemsen WN, Krone D, Schneider E, Niebch G, Hermann R.. Single and multiple dose pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist Cetrorelix in healthy female volunteers. Hum Reprod 1998;13:2392–2398. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Erdem M, Mutlu MF, Erdem A, Mutlu I, Guler I, Oktem M.. The predictive value of early follicular progesteron on preovulatuary progesteron rise in IVF cycles with GNRH antagonist protocol. Fertil Steril 2015;104:E324. [Google Scholar]
  25. Escudero E, Bosch E, Crespo J, Simón C, Remohí J, Pellicer A.. Comparison of two different starting multiple dose gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocols in a selected group of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer patients. Fertil Steril 2004;81:562–566. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. European and Middle East Orgalutran Study Group. Comparable clinical outcome using the GnRH antagonist ganirelix or a long protocol of the GnRH agonist triptorelin for the prevention of premature LH surges in women undergoing ovarian stimulation. Hum Reprod 2001;16:644–651. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Fanchin R, Salomon L, Castelo-Branco A, Olivennes F, Frydman N, Frydman R.. Luteal estradiol pre-treatment coordinates follicular growth during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation with GnRH antagonists. Hum Reprod 2003;18:2698–2703. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Farquhar C, Marjoribanks J, Brown J, Fauser B, Lethaby A, Mourad S, Rebar R, Showell M, van der Poel S.. Management of ovarian stimulation for IVF: narrative review of evidence provided for World Health Organization guidance. Reprod Biomed Online 2017;35:3–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Fernandez-Prada S, Martín-Cameán M, Armijo O, Diez-Sebastián J, Iniesta S, Lobo S, Silva P, Sanz C, Sánchez MJ, Hernández A.. Use of steroid pre-treatments in IVF-ICSI cycles with GnRH antagonist protocol and their impact on gestational outcomes. J Obstet Gynaecol 2022;42:478–484. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Ferrari B, Pezzuto A, Barusi L, Coppola F.. Follicular fluid vascular endothelial growth factor concentrations are increased during GnRH antagonist/FSH ovarian stimulation cycles. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2006;124:70–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Fluker M, Grifo J, Leader A, Levy M, Meldrum D, Muasher SJ, Rinehart J, Rosenwaks Z, Scott RT, Schoolcraft W. et al. ; North American Ganirelix Study Group. Efficacy and safety of ganirelix acetate versus leuprolide acetate in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Fertil Steril 2001;75:38–45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Fornaro F, Cobellis L, Mele D, Tassou A, Badolati B, Sorrentino S, De Lucia D, Colacurci N.. Effects of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist/recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone versus gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist/recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone on follicular fluid levels of adhesion molecules during in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2007;87:39–47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Friedler S, Gilboa S, Schachter M, Raziel A, Strassburger D, El RR.. Luteal phase characteristics following GnRH antagonist or agonist treatment – a comparative study. Reprod Biomed Online 2006;12:27–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Garcia-Velasco JA, Bermejo A, Ruiz F, Martinez-Salazar J, Requena A, Pellicer A.. Cycle scheduling with oral contraceptive pills in the GnRH antagonist protocol vs the long protocol: a randomized, controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2011;96:590–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Griesinger G, Kolibianakis EM, Venetis C, Diedrich K, Tarlatzis B.. Oral contraceptive pretreatment significantly reduces ongoing pregnancy likelihood in gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist cycles: an updated meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2010;94:2382–2384. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schunemann HJ, Group GW; GRADE Working Group. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336:924–926. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Harbord RM, Egger M, Sterne JA.. A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints. Stat Med 2006;25:3443–3457. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Hartung J, Knapp G.. A refined method for the meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials with binary outcome. Stat Med 2001;20:3875–3889. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Hauzman EE, Zapata A, Bermejo A, Iglesias C, Pellicer A, Garcia-Velasco JA.. Cycle scheduling for in vitro fertilization with oral contraceptive pills versus oral estradiol valerate: a randomized, controlled trial. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2013;11:96. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Haydardedeoglu B, Kilicdag EB, Parlakgumus AH, Zeyneloglu HB.. IVF/ICSI outcomes of the OCP plus GnRH agonist protocol versus the OCP plus GnRH antagonist fixed protocol in women with PCOS: a randomized trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012;286:763–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Hernandez ER. Embryo implantation and GnRH antagonists: embryo implantation: the Rubicon for GnRH antagonists. Hum Reprod 2000;15:1211–1216. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Hershkop E, Segal L, Fainaru O, Kol S.. ‘Model’ versus ‘everyday’ patients: can randomized controlled trial data really be applied to the clinic? Reprod Biomed Online 2017;34:274–279. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA; Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Higgins JP, Jackson D, Barrett JK, Lu G, Ades AE, White IR.. Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: concepts and models for multi-arm studies. Res Synth Methods 2012;3:98–110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Hossein Rashidi B, Behrouzi Lak T, ShahrokhTehrani E, Davari Tanha F.. Fixed versus flexible gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonist protocol in controlled ovarian stimulation for invitro fertilization in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. J Family Reprod Health 2015;9:141–146. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Hosseini MA, Aleyasin A, Saeedi H, Mahdavi A.. Comparison of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists and antagonists in assisted reproduction cycles of polycystic ovarian syndrome patients. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2010;36:605–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Huirne JA, van Loenen AC, Donnez J, Pirard C, Homburg R, Schats R, McDonnell J, Lambalk CB.. Effect of an oral contraceptive pill on follicular development in IVF/ICSI patients receiving a GnRH antagonist: a randomized study. Reprod Biomed Online 2006a;13:235–245. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Huirne JA, Hugues JN, Pirard C, Fischl F, Sage JC, Pouly JL, Obruca A, Braat DM, van Loenen ACD, Lambalk CB.. Cetrorelix in an OC pretreated stimulation cycle compared to buserelin in IVF/ICSI patients treated with r-hFSH: a randomized, multicentre, phase IIIb study. Hum Reprod 2006b;21:1408–15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Huirne JA, Lambalk CB.. Gonadotropin-releasing-hormone-receptor antagonists. Lancet 2001;358:1793–1803. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C, Ioannidis JP, Straus S, Thorlund K, Jansen JP. et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med 2015;162:777–784. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. IntHout J, Ioannidis JP, Borm GF.. The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis is straightforward and considerably outperforms the standard DerSimonian-Laird method. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014;14:25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Karabacak O, Akcin U, Bozkurt N, Erdem M, Atici D, Gumuslu S.. Randomized comparison of GnRH antagonist and agonist regimen in 35 years of age or older undergoing ICSI. Hum Reprod, Volume 21, Issue suppl_1, 2006, page i115. [Google Scholar]
  53. Karande V, Klipstein S, Birkenkamp T, Melone K, Meyer L, Hazlett W.. Comparison of NuvaRing and Desogen in IVF cycles with ganirelix acetate. J Obstet Gynecol India 2007;57:234–239. [Google Scholar]
  54. Kars B, Sofuoglu K, Caliskan E, Oztekin DC, Akdas G, Tug N.. A randomised comparison of ganirelix and cetrorelix use in ICSI cycle of women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Fertil Steril 2007;88:S181. [Google Scholar]
  55. Kim CH, You RM, Kang HJ, Ahn JW, Jeon I, Lee JW, Kim SH, Chae HD, Kang BM.. GnRH antagonist multiple dose protocol with oral contraceptive pill pretreatment in poor responders undergoing IVF/ICSI. Clin Exp Reprod Med 2011;38:228–233. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Klement AH, Berkovitz A, Wiser A, Gonen O, Amichay K, Cohen I, Ghetler Y, Shulman A.. GnRH-antagonist programming versus GnRH agonist protocol: a randomized trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2015;185:170–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Kolibianakis EM, Papanikolaou EG, Camus M, Tournaye H, Van Steirteghem AC, Devroey P.. Effect of oral contraceptive pill pretreatment on ongoing pregnancy rates in patients stimulated with GnRH antagonists and recombinant FSH for IVF. A randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2006;21:352–357. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Kalogeropoulou L, Papanikolaou E, Tarlatzis BC.. Fixed versus flexible gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist administration in in vitro fertilization: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2011;95:558–562. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Kurzawa R, Ciepiela P, Baczkowski T, Safranow K, Brelik P.. Comparison of embryological and clinical outcome in GnRH antagonist vs. GnRH agonist protocols for in vitro fertilization in PCOS non-obese patients. A prospective randomized study. J Assist Reprod Genet 2008;25:365–374. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Lainas TG, Sfontouris IA, Zorzovilis IZ, Petsas GK, Lainas GT, Alexopoulou E, Kolibianakis EM.. Flexible GnRH antagonist protocol versus GnRH agonist long protocol in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome treated for IVF: a prospective randomised controlled trial (RCT). Hum Reprod, Vol.25, No.3 pp. 683–689, 2010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Loutradis D, Stefanidis K, Drakakis P, Milingos S, Antsaklis A, Michalas S.. A modified gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol failed to increase clinical pregnancy rates in comparison with the long GnRH protocol. Fertil Steril 2004;82:1446–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Ludwig M, Katalinic A, Banz C, Schröder AK, Löning M, Weiss JM, Diedrich K.. Tailoring the GnRH antagonist cetrorelix acetate to individual patients' needs in ovarian stimulation for IVF: results of a prospective, randomized study. Hum Reprod 2002;17:2842–2845. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Luo X, Pei L, Li F, Li C, Huang G, Ye H.. Fixed versus flexible antagonist protocol in women with predicted high ovarian response except PCOS: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2021;21:348. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Lyttle Schumacher BM, Mersereau JE, Steiner AZ.. Cycle day, estrogen level, and lead follicle size: analysis of 27,790 in vitro fertilization cycles to determine optimal start criteria for gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist. Fertil Steril 2018;109:633–637. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Marci R, Caserta D, Dolo V, Tatone C, Pavan A, Moscarini M.. GnRH antagonist in IVF poor-responder patients: results of a randomized trial. Reprod Biomed Online 2005;11:189–93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Mbuagbaw L, Rochwerg B, Jaeschke R, Heels-Andsell D, Alhazzani W, Thabane L, Guyatt GH.. Approaches to interpreting and choosing the best treatments in network meta-analyses. Syst Rev 2017;6:79. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Mochtar MH; Dutch Ganirelix Study Group. The effect of an individualized GnRH antagonist protocol on folliculogenesis in IVF/ICSI. Hum Reprod 2004;19:1713–1718. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Mokhtar S, Sadeghi MR, Akhondi MM, Zafardoust S, Badenush B, Fatemi F, Nazari F, Kamali K, Mohammadzade A.. ART Outcomes in GnRH Antagonist Protocol (Flexible) and Long GnRH Agonist Protocol during Early Follicular Phase in Patients with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Reprod Infertil. 2015;16:148–154. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Moraloglu O, Kilic S, Karayalçin R, Yuksel B, Tasdemir N, Işik A, Ugur M.. Comparison of GnRH Agonists and Antagonists in Normoresponder IVF/ICSI in Turkish Female Patients. Adv Ther. 2008;25:266–273. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Nikolakopoulou A, Higgins JPT, Papakonstantinou T, Chaimani A, Del Giovane C, Egger M, Salanti G.. CINeMA: an approach for assessing confidence in the results of a network meta-analysis. PLoS Med 2020;17:e1003082. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Olivennes F, Belaisch-Allart J, Emperaire JC, Dechaud H, Alvarez S, Moreau L, Nicollet B, Zorn JR, Bouchard P, Frydman R.. Prospective, randomized, controlled study of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer with a single dose of a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LH-RH) antagonist (cetrorelix) or a depot formula of an LH-RH agonist (triptorelin). Fertil Steril 2000;73:314–320. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Ozturk Inal Z, Yilmaz N, Inal HA, Hancerliogullari N, Coskun B.. Are there any differences between antagonist administration on days <6 and >/=6 of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation on assisted reproductive technique outcomes? J Chin Med Assoc 2018;81:53–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Pabuccu R, Onalan G, Kaya C.. GnRH agonist and antagonist protocols for stage I–II endometriosis and endometrioma in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Fertil Steril 2007;88:832–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Prapas Y, Petousis S, Dagklis T, Panagiotidis Y, Papatheodorou A, Assunta I, Prapas N. GnRH antagonist versus long GnRH agonist protocol in poor IVF responders: a randomized clinical trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;166:43–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Rabati BK, Zeidi SN.. Investigation of pregnancy outcome and ovarian hyper stimulation syndrome prevention in agonist and antagonist gonadotropin-releasing hormone protocol. J Res Med Sci. 2012;17:1063–1066. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Rombauts L, Healy D, Norman RJ; Orgalutran Scheduling Study Group. A comparative randomized trial to assess the impact of oral contraceptive pretreatment on follicular growth and hormone profiles in GnRH antagonist-treated patients. Hum Reprod 2006;21:95–103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Salanti G, Ades A, Ioannidis JP.. Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:163–171. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Sbracia M, Colabianchi J, Giallonardo A, Giannini P, Piscitelli C, Morgia F, Montigiani M, Schimberni M.. Cetrorelix protocol versus gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog suppression long protocol for superovulation in intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients older than 40. Fertil Steril 2009;91:1842–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Serafini P, Yadid I, Motta ELA, Alegretti JR, Fioravanti J, Coslovsky M.. Ovarian stimulation with daily late follicular phase administration of low-dose human chorionic gonadotropin for in vitro fertilization: a prospective, randomized trial. Fertil Steril 2006;86:830–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Shahrokh Tehrani Nejad E, Bakhtiari Ghaleh F, Eslami B, Haghollahi F, Bagheri M, Masoumi M.. Comparison of pre-treatment with OCPs or estradiol valerate vs. no pre-treatment prior to GnRH antagonist used for IVF cycles: an RCT. Int J Reprod Biomed 2018;16:535–540. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Shin JJ, Park KE, Choi YM, Kim HO, Choi DH, Lee WS, Cho JH. Early gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: A preliminary randomized trial. Clin Exp Reprod Med. 2018;45:135–142. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Jones DR, Lau J, Carpenter J, Rucker G, Harbord RM, Schmid CH. et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2011;343:d4002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Sunkara SK, Coomarasamy A, Faris R, Braude P, Khalaf Y.. Long gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist versus short agonist versus antagonist regimens in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2014;101:147–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Tannus S, Weissman A, Boaz M, Horowitz E, Ravhon A, Golan A, Levran D.. The effect of delayed initiation of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist in a flexible protocol on in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril 2013;99:725–730. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Tazegül A, Görkemli H, Özdemir S, Murad Aktan T.. Comparison of multiple dose GnRH antagonist and minidose long agonist protocols in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2008;278:467–472. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Tehraninejad ES, Fazel A, Samiei A, Rashidi B, Flexible Kiani K., Multi-dose GnRH Antagonist versus Long GnRH Agonist Protocol in Poor Responders: A Randomized Controlled Trial. International Journal of Fertility and Sterility Vol 2, No 4, Feb-Mar 2009, Pages: 165–168. [Google Scholar]
  88. Tehraninejad ES, Nasiri R, Rashidi B, Haghollahi F, Ataie M.. Comparison of GnRH antagonist with long GnRH agonist protocol after OCP pretreatment in PCOs patients. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2010;282:319–325. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Tehraninejad E, Nezamabadi AG, Rashidi B, Sohrabi M, Bagheri M, Haghollahi F, Nekoo EA, Jafarabadi M.. GnRH antagonist versus agonist in normoresponders undergoing ICSI: a randomized clinical trial in Iran Iranian Journal of Reproductive Medicine Vol.9. No.3. pp: 171–176, Summer 2011. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Trenkić M, Popović J, Kopitović V, Bjelica A, Živadinović R, Pop-Trajković S.. Flexible GnRH antagonist protocol vs. long GnRH agonist protocol in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome treated for IVF: comparison of clinical outcome and embryo quality. Ginekol Pol 2016;87:265–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. Tur-Kaspa I, Ezcurra D.. GnRH antagonist, cetrorelix, for pituitary suppression in modern, patient-friendly assisted reproductive technology. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2009;5:1323–1336. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Verpoest W, Anick DV, Martine DR, Shruti P, Catherine S, Herman T, Michel DV, Veerle V, Christophe B.. Gonadotropin releasing hormone agonists or antagonists for preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD)? A prospective randomised trial. Curr Pharm Biotechnol 2017;18:622–627. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Vilela M, Marconi M, Zappacosta MP, Porrati L, Valcarcel A, Marconi G.. Oral contraceptive (OcP) pretreatment achieves better pregnancy rates in in vitro fertilization (IVF) antagonists GnRH flexible protocols: a prospective randomized study. Fertil Steril 2011;96:S252. [Google Scholar]
  94. von Hippel PT. The heterogeneity statistic I(2) can be biased in small meta-analyses. BMC Med Res Methodol 2015;15:35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  95. Xavier P, Gamboa C, Calejo L, Silva J, Stevenson D, Nunes A, Martinez-de-Oliveira J.. A randomised study of GnRH antagonist (cetrorelix) versus agonist (busereline) for controlled ovarian stimulation: effect on safety and efficacy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2005;120:185–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. Wei D, Shi Y, Li J, Wang Z, Zhang L, Sun Y, Zhou H, Xu Y, Wu C, Liu L. et al. Effect of pretreatment with oral contraceptives and progestins on IVF outcomes in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Hum Reprod 2017;32:354–361. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  97. White IR, Barrett JK, Jackson D, Higgins JP.. Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: model estimation using multivariate meta-regression. Res Synth Methods 2012;3:111–125. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  98. White IR. Network meta-analysis. The Stata Journal 2015;15:951–985. [Google Scholar]
  99. Wilcox J, Potter D, Moore M, Ferrande L, Kelly E; CAP IV Investigator Group. Prospective, randomized trial comparing cetrorelix acetate and ganirelix acetate in a programmed, flexible protocol for premature luteinizing hormone surge prevention in assisted reproductive technologies. Fertil Steril 2005;84:108–117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  100. Xu B, Geerts D, Hu S, Yue J, Li Z, Zhu G, Jin L.. The depot GnRH agonist protocol improves the live birth rate per fresh embryo transfer cycle, but not the cumulative live birth rate in normal responders: a randomized controlled trial and molecular mechanism study. Hum Reprod 2020;35:1306–1318. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  101. Ye H, Huang G, Zeng P, Pei L.. IVF/ICSI outcomes between cycles with luteal estradiol (E2) pre-treatment before GnRH antagonist protocol and standard long GnRH agonist protocol: a prospective and randomized study. J Assist Reprod Genet 2009;26:105–111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  102. Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, de Mouzon J, Ishihara O, Mansour R, Nygren K, Sullivan E, Vanderpoel S; World Health Organization. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) and the World Health Organization (WHO) revised glossary of ART terminology, 2009. Fertil Steril 2009;92:1520–1524. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

dmac040_Supplementary_Data
Click here for additional data file. (224KB, zip)

Data Availability Statement

The data underlying this article will be shared upon reasonable request to the Corresponding Author.

Articles from Human Reproduction Update are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES