Author:
Xu Zheyun,Tong Weiquan,Yang Ze,Zhang Hongyan,Chen Xingbei
Abstract
AbstractGrowth hormone (GH) has a long-standing history of use as an adjunctive therapy in the treatment of poor ovarian response (POR), but the optimal dosage and timing remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of different GH supplementation protocols through a network meta-analysis (NMA) and determine the optimal treatment protocol. This study was reported based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews for Network Meta-Analysis (PRISMA-NMA) statement. Databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Embase were searched until June 2023. A total of 524 records were retrieved in our search, and 23 clinical studies comprising 4889 cycles were involved. Seven different GH protocols were identified. Results showed that compared to the control group, daily administration of 4–8 IU of GH during the follicular phase of the stimulation cycle had the best comprehensive therapeutic effects on improving the number of retrieved oocytes, mature oocytes, endometrial thickness, and reducing gonadotropin requirements in POR patients undergoing assisted reproductive therapy, with a relatively brief treatment duration and a moderate total GH dose. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that this protocol could significantly improve the clinical pregnancy rate of POR patients in the randomized controlled trials (RCT) subgroup and the African subgroup. Therefore, its clinical application is suggested. Besides, the potential advantages of long-term GH supplementation protocol (using GH for at least 2 weeks before oocyte retrieval) has merit for further research. Rigorous and well-designed multi-arm RCTs are needed in the future to confirm the conclusions drawn from this study.
Funder
Project of Medicine Science and Technology Program of Zhejiang Province
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference67 articles.
1. Abu-Musa, A., Haahr, T. & Humaidan, P. Novel physiology and definition of poor ovarian response; Clinical recommendations. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 21, 2110 (2020).
2. Drakopoulos, P. et al. Update on the management of poor ovarian response in IVF: The shift from Bologna criteria to the Poseidon concept. Ther. Adv. Reprod. Health. 14, 2633494120941480. https://doi.org/10.1177/2633494120941480 (2020).
3. Jirge, P. R. Poor ovarian reserve. J. Hum. Reprod. Sci. 9, 63–69 (2016).
4. Monteiro, C. S., Scheffer, B. B., Carvalho, R. F. & Scheffer, J. B. The impact of dehydroepiandrosterone in poor ovarian responders on assisted reproduction technology treatment. JBRA Assist Reprod. 23, 414–417 (2019).
5. Vaiarelli, A., Cimadomo, D., Ubaldi, N., Rienzi, L. & Ubaldi, F. M. What is new in the management of poor ovarian response in IVF?. Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol. 30, 155–162 (2018).