» Articles » PMID: 24074027

Cycle Scheduling for in Vitro Fertilization with Oral Contraceptive Pills Versus Oral Estradiol Valerate: a Randomized, Controlled Trial

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2013 Oct 1
PMID 24074027
Citations 13
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Both oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) and estradiol (E2) valerate have been used to schedule gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles and, consequently, laboratory activities. However, there are no studies comparing treatment outcomes directly between these two pretreatment methods. This randomized controlled trial was aimed at finding differences in ongoing pregnancy rates between GnRH antagonist IVF cycles scheduled with OCPs or E2 valerate.

Methods: Between January and May 2012, one hundred consecutive patients (nonobese, regularly cycling women 18-38 years with normal day 3 hormone levels and <3 previous IVF/ICSI attempts) undergoing IVF with the GnRH antagonist protocol were randomized to either the OCP or E2 pretreatment arms, with no restrictions such as blocking or stratification. Authors involved in data collection and analysis were blinded to group assignment. Fifty patients received OCP (30 μg ethinyl E2/150 μg levonorgestrel) for 12-16 days from day 1 or 2, and stimulation was started 5 days after stopping OCP. Similarly, 50 patients received 4 mg/day oral E2 valerate from day 20 for 5-12 days, until the day before starting stimulation.

Results: Pretreatment with OCP (mean±SD, 14.5±1.7 days) was significantly longer than with E2 (7.8±1.9 days). Stimulation and embryological characteristics were similar. Ongoing pregnancy rates (46.0% vs. 44.0%; risk difference, -2.0% [95% CI -21.2% to 17.3%]), as well as implantation (43.5% vs. 47.4%), clinical pregnancy (50.0% vs. 48.0%), clinical miscarriage (7.1% vs. 7.7%), and live birth (42.0% vs. 40.0%) rates were comparable between groups.

Conclusions: This is the first study to directly compare these two methods of cycle scheduling in GnRH antagonist cycles. Our results fail to show statistically significant differences in ongoing pregnancy rates between pretreatment with OCP and E2 for IVF with the GnRH antagonist protocol. Although the study is limited by its sample size, our results may contribute to a future meta-analysis. An interesting future direction would be to extend our study to women with decreased ovarian reserve, as these are the patients in whom an increase in oocyte yield-due to the hypothetical beneficial effect of steroid pretreatment on follicular synchronization-could more easily be demonstrated.

Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov http://NCT01501448.

Citing Articles

FSH/LH co-stimulation in Advanced Maternal Age (AMA) and hypo-responder patients - Arabian gulf delphi consensus group.

Awwad J, Peramo B, Elgeyoushi B, Melado L, Salame A, Chawla M Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2024; 15:1506332.

PMID: 39726844 PMC: 11669953. DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2024.1506332.


Previous Use of Combined Oral Contraception in High Complexity Assisted Reproduction Treatments in Protocol with Oral Progestin - Previous use of COC and ART.

Vidal D, Gentil F, Montagna E, Barbosa C, de Oliveira R JBRA Assist Reprod. 2024; 28(4):639-649.

PMID: 39311653 PMC: 11622397. DOI: 10.5935/1518-0557.20240058.


Conventional ovarian stimulation vs. delayed single dose corifollitropin alfa ovarian stimulation in oocyte donors: a prospective randomized study. Tail trial.

Alvarado Franco C, Bernabeu Garcia A, Sunol Sala J, Guerrero Villena J, Albero Amoros S, Llacer J Front Reprod Health. 2023; 5:1239175.

PMID: 37965590 PMC: 10642283. DOI: 10.3389/frph.2023.1239175.


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

Venetis C, Storr A, Chua S, Mol B, Longobardi S, Yin X Hum Reprod Update. 2023; 29(3):307-326.

PMID: 36594696 PMC: 10152179. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmac040.


Follicular phase cycle programming using estradiol in oocyte donors-a convenient and effective approach.

Banker M, Arora P, Banker J, Gupta R, Shah S F S Rep. 2022; 3(1):20-25.

PMID: 35386503 PMC: 8978085. DOI: 10.1016/j.xfre.2021.12.007.


References
1.
Rombauts L, Healy D, Norman R . 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. 2005; 21(1):95-103. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dei302. View

2.
Barad D, Kim A, Kubba H, Weghofer A, Gleicher N . Does hormonal contraception prior to in vitro fertilization (IVF) negatively affect oocyte yields? A pilot study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2013; 11:28. PMC: 3637242. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7827-11-28. View

3.
Devroey P, Aboulghar M, Garcia-Velasco J, Griesinger G, Humaidan P, Kolibianakis E . Improving the patient's experience of IVF/ICSI: a proposal for an ovarian stimulation protocol with GnRH antagonist co-treatment. Hum Reprod. 2009; 24(4):764-74. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/den468. View

4.
Phillips A, Hahn D, KLIMEK S, Mcguire J . A comparison of the potencies and activities of progestogens used in contraceptives. Contraception. 1987; 36(2):181-92. DOI: 10.1016/0010-7824(87)90013-8. View

5.
Griesinger G, Kolibianakis E, 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(6):2382-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.04.025. View