Skip to main content
Download PDF

Pretreatment with or without GnRH-agonist before frozen–thawed embryo transfer in patients with PCOS: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal of Ovarian Research volume 17, Article number: 130 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

This study was aimed to systematically evaluate the efficacy of artificial cycle-prepared frozen–thawed embryo transfer (FET) with or without gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) pretreatment for women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).

Methods

The analysis was carried out by searching the PubMed, EMBASE, and CNKI databases with a combination of keywords before October 2021. The available studies of the effects of GnRH-a pretreatment or no pretreatment on FET in PCOS patients were considered. The risk ratios (RRs) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated with using subgroups and sensitivity analysis. The quality evaluation for this analysis was followed.

Results

Seventeen studies including 3646 women were analyzed. GnRH-a pretreatment was significantly associated with a higher implantation rate (RR = 1.12, 95%CI: 1.00–1.24) and clinical pregnancy rate (RR = 1.19, 95%CI: 1.08–1.32) than the placebo. Moreover, in the GnRH-a pretreatment group, significant differences were detected for increasing the endometrium thickness among PCOS patients (SMD = 0.56, 95%CI: 0.20–0.92). However, for RCTs subgroup, no differences were observed, even after sensitivity analyses. In addition, the miscarriage rates, ectopic pregnancy rates, multiple pregnancy rates, and live birth rates were similar in both two groups.

Conclusions

Endometrial preparation using GnRH agonist pretreatment prior to FET seems to be the better choice for PCOS patients. However, well-designed RCTs are required for confirmation.

Introduction

The endometrial receptivity and the coordination between endometrium and embryo development are the key points for implantation [1, 2]. However, the issue of how to prepare the endometrium before frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) to improve pregnancy outcomes remains uncertain, especially for polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) women [3,4,5]. The conventional artificial cycles are used frequently for the purpose of preparing the endometrium for PCOS women by exogenous estrogen and progesterone administration [6,7,8]. However, the low fertility rate and high miscarriage rate in PCOS patients indicates poor endometrial receptivity and endometrial dysfunction, when compared with the healthy women [9]. The defect in endometrial receptivity in PCOS patients is associated with the high level of androgen, which can result in poor oocyte quality and endometrial receptivity for implantation, leading to low fertilization and high miscarriage rates [9, 10].

Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist is synthesized in the hypothalamus, which is a decapeptide hormone transiently suppressing the hypothalamic–pituitary–gonadal axis to induce a hypo-estrogenic effect, and therefore regulating the endometrial receptivity [11]. Moreover, when using GnRH agonists, not only the levels of estrogen but also the androgen can be decreased by down-regulation of GnRH receptors in the pituitary gland [12]. In addition, it can maintain lower estrogen levels after down-regulation and the shutdown of “implantation window” in advance can be prevented. Several researches have presented that PCOS is an endocrine disease with excessive production of luteinizing hormone (LH) and a hyper-androgenic microenvironment as well as the role of inflammatory factors, and the endometrial receptivity can be affected [13, 14]. Therefore, pretreatment with GnRH-a in PCOS patients may be effective for embryo implantation by adjusting the levels of estrogen and LH. In 1991, Muasher SJ et al. [15] showed that preparing the endometrium with estrogen and progesterone replacement therapy for patients undergoing FET, the higher clinical pregnancy rate was observed in women with irregular menstrual cycles or ovulation disorders when using leuprolide acetate to suppress pituitary. A few studies [16, 17] have also demonstrated GnRH-a pretreatment for PCOS patients could improve pregnancy outcomes following FET, including increasing clinical pregnancy rate and decreasing the miscarriage rate. However, other studies [18, 19] suggested that no benefits of pretreatment with GnRH-a were on improving pregnancy outcomes for PCOS patients receiving FET, but significantly increasing costs for patients.

In order to address this controversial problem, a large number of studies focusing on the efficacy of pretreatment with GnRH-a before FET in women with PCOS were conducted in the last decade. Based on the published data, it was considered necessary to conduct a persuasive systematic review and meta-analysis by stratifying patients according to the different study design types. Thus, the purpose of our study was to explore if the pretreatment with GnRH-a before FET could improve the pregnancy outcomes in a large PCOS patient population.

Materials and methods

Data collection and search strategy

The PubMed, EMBASE, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases were searched exhaustively for researches that explored the efficacy of the pretreatment with GnRH-a before FET for PCOS patient, with the following keywords combined: "down regulation", "GnRH agonist", "gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist", "polycystic ovary syndrome", "PCOS", “FET”, and “frozen-thawed embryo transfer”. The last retrieval was carried out in October 2021 and no restriction was placed on the language.

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and case–control studies that compared with and without GnRH-agonist pretreatment before FET in patients with PCOS were considered. According to different preparations for endometrium, patients treated with conventional estrogen and progesterone replacement were control group. In the case group, GnRH-agonist pretreatment were administrated combined with estrogen and progesterone replacement.

Eligibility and exclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria were defined as follows: (i) RCTs or case–control studies focused on the effects of pretreatment with or without GnRH-agonist before FET; (ii) studies on infertile patients with PCOS, and patients were diagnosed with PCOS according to two of the three Rotterdam 2003 criteria: oligoovulation or anovulation, clinical and/or biochemical signs of hyperandrogenism, polycystic ovaries [20]. For Chinese population, menstrual abnormalities combined with either hyperandrogenism or polycystic ovaries were used to PCOS diagnosis according to modified Rotterdam criteria. (iii) studies assessing at least one of the following outcomes: endometrial thickness on first day of progesterone supplementation, implantation rates, clinical pregnancy rates, miscarriage rates, ectopic pregnancy rates, multiple pregnancy rates, and live birth rates.

The major exclusion criteria were as follows: (i) studies that were not RCTs or case–control trials; (ii) studies evaluating only other clinical outcomes and not including a control group; (iii) raw data and not accessible. In addition, case reports, review articles, commentaries, and letters were all also excluded.

Quality assessment

The quality of the included RCT studies was assessed according to the recommended approach of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool [21]. Six specific domains were summarized: adequate sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data addressed, free of selective reporting, and other issues. On the premise that the results of each quality evaluation item are "yes", the quality evaluation grade of this study is considered as A. If the result of at least one quality evaluation item is "unclear" and none is "no", it is B. In addition, the quality of the case–control studies was also assessed systematically by using the criteria identified.

Clinical outcomes and subgroup analysis

In this systematic review, the primary outcomes were endometrial thickness on first day of progesterone supplementation, implantation rates, clinical pregnancy rates, and miscarriage rates per FET cycle. In addition, ectopic pregnancy rates, multiple pregnancy rates, and live birth rates were also assessed in detail. Few studies reported on chemical pregnancy rates or endometrial thickness on the day of embryo transfer. Furthermore, the subgroups of implantation rates, clinical pregnancy rates, and miscarriage rates were analyzed according to the different types of study design, including the RCT group and case–control group.

Statistical analysis

Using the fixed-effects and random-effects models, the pooled risk ratios (RRs) and the standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for clinical outcomes. Forest plots were used graphically when the pooled RR estimates on the effect of pretreatment with or without GnRH-agonist were chosen before FET. In addition, the Cochrane’s Q and I2 statistic were applied to estimate heterogeneity and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant [22]. Fixed-effects model was applied, when values for I2 less than 50% indicate low or moderate heterogeneity. If not, the random-effects model was applied under conditions of high heterogeneity (I2 > 50%). According to the different types of study design, subgroup analyses were carried out to further explore the source of heterogeneity. When heterogeneity was present, a sensitivity analysis was carried out by removing the study with the highest potential heterogeneity.

All of the analyses in this study were conducted with Stata version 9.0 (Stata Corporation, USA). Begg’s unweighted regression test and funnel plots were used to test for potential publication bias graphically by measuring asymmetry and drawing a vertical line (P > 0.05).

Results

Study identification and quality assessment

A total of 957 records were screened from the PubMed, EMBASE, and CNKI databases. After screening of the titles and abstracts, 921 records were excluded for not meeting the criteria and 36 studies remained for detailed full-text evaluation. 19 articles were excluded for the following reasons: 12 studies lacked valid data or did not compare pretreatment with or without GnRH-agonist before FET and 4 were reviews, reports, or conferences. Finally, 17 studies [16,17,18,19, 23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35] containing 3646 participants were eligible. The process flow diagram of selected studies is presented in Fig. 1. Comparing the effectiveness of pretreatment with or without GnRH-agonist for PCOS on clinical outcomes before FET, four RCTs [16, 18, 19, 29] and thirteen case–control studies [17, 23,24,25,26,27,28, 30,31,32,33,34,35] were analyzed. In the control group, simple artificial cycle regimen was applied for PCOS patients who received standard treatment for endometrial preparation using estradiol valerate before embryo transfer. The pretreatment group was treated with GnRH-a down-regulated artificial cycle regimen, patients with PCOS received a depot of long-acting GnRH agonist before beginning exogenous hormone supplementation. The characteristics of patients included in the analysis are summarized in Table 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Articles identification for the process flow diagram

Full size image
Table 1 Characteristics of included studies
Full size table

Ultimately, quality evaluation of articles was carried out including four RCTs and thirteen case–control studies. The quality of one RCT study was for level A, other three studies for level B. The quality assessment for RCT studies was summarized in Tables 2 and 3 for case–control studies.

Table 2 Quality assessment for randomized controlled studies
Full size table
Table 3 Quality assessment for case-controlled studies
Full size table

Endometrial thickness

As for the effect of GnRH-a pretreatment before FET for PCOS patients, nine studies [18, 23, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, 35] with 1915 participants were included to evaluate endometrial thickness on first day of progesterone supplementation including one RCT [18] and eight case–control studies [23, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, 35]. The pretreatment of GnRH-agonist before frozen-thawed embryo transfer was effective in increasing the endometrium thickness among infertile women with PCOS. The SMD between patients using GnRH-a pretreatment and controls was 0.56 (95% CI: 0.20, 0.92, p = 0.000). Significant differences were detected in the GnRH-a pretreatment group when compared with the control group for endometrium thickness among PCOS patients (Table 4; Fig. 2A).

Table 4 Systematic review and meta-analysis results for included studies following FET with or without GnRH-a pretreatment
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

The pooled RRs or the SMD with 95% CIs of the relationship between FET cycles with or without GnRH agonist pretreatment for endometrial thickness on first day of progesterone supplementation (A), implantation rates (B), clinical pregnancy rates with random models (C), sensitivity analysis (D) and funnel plots for clinical pregnancy rate (E), and miscarriage rates with fixed model (F)

Full size image

Implantation rate

Eleven studies [19, 23, 25,26,27, 29, 30, 32,33,34,35] were included in the comparison of implantation rates with a total of 2897 events with 5362 embryos transferred, and two RCTs [19, 29] and nine case–control studies [23, 25,26,27, 30, 32,33,34,35]. The implantation rate was 46.96% (1029/2191) in those with receiving GnRH-a pretreatment compared to 43.27% (1372/3171) in those without receiving GnRH-a pretreatment. Significant differences were detected between GnRH-a pretreatment patients and placebo patients with using the random effects model; the RR was 1.12 (95% CI 1.00–1.24, I2 = 63.7%). In the study-design subgroup analysis, a higher implantation rate was also observed in GnRH-a pretreatment group compared with the controls for the case–control study group (RR = 1.16; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.32, I2 = 65.0%). However, no significant difference was observed for the RCT group (RR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.63, 1.24, I2 = 55.8%). To explore the high heterogeneity among studies, a sensitivity analysis was conducted. After analysis, the study with the highest heterogeneity was shown [27], which was the study only focused on PCOS population with first frozen-thawed embryo transfer transplant failure. After removing the highest heterogeneity study, the statistical difference was also similar to previous results. No significant bias was detected and the funnel plot was estimated to be symmetric using Begg’s test. (Table 5; Fig. 2B).

Table 5 The subgroup analysis for the primary pregnant outcomes according to study design
Full size table

Clinical pregnancy rate

Seventeen studies [16,17,18,19, 23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35] involving 3640 participants were analyzed for clinical pregnancy rate including four RCTs [16, 18, 19, 29] and thirteen case–control studies [17, 23,24,25,26,27,28, 30,31,32,33,34,35]. Successful clinical pregnancy occurred in 934 of 1531 (61.01%) patients receiving GnRH-a pretreatment and in 1157of 2109 (54.86%) participants for patients without receiving pretreatment. With using the random-effects model, the results presented that the difference in clinical pregnancy rates between the GnRH-a pretreatment and no pretreatment groups was statistically significant, and the RR was 1.19 (95% CI: 1.08, 1.32, I2 = 59.0%) (Table 4; Fig. 2C). Due to the high heterogeneity for the clinical pregnancy rate, we carried out a subgroup analysis and a sensitivity analysis to explore the sources of heterogeneity. In the subgroup analysis for case–control study, a higher clinical pregnancy rate was observed in PCOS patients receiving GnRH-a pretreatment compared with the control group not receiving GnRH-a pretreatment (RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.11, 1.38, I2 = 60.4%). However, for the RCT group, there was no significant difference (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.81, 1.34, I2 = 51.4%) (Table 5; Fig. 2C). In the sensitivity analysis, the study focusing on the GnRH-a pretreatment for PCOS population had the highest heterogeneity [30]. After removing the highest heterogeneity study, the statistical difference was also similar to previous results and no significant difference was observed for RCT group (Table 5; Fig. 2D). No significant bias was detected with using Begg’s test (Fig. 2E).

Miscarriage rate

Seventeen studies [16,17,18,19, 23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35] reported the miscarriage rate in 2091 participants including four RCTs [16, 18, 19, 29] and thirteen case–control studies [17, 23,24,25,26,27,28, 30,31,32,33,34,35]. Miscarriage occurred in 109 of 934 (11.67%) events in the GnRH-a pretreatment group and in 162 of 1157 (14.00%) events in the control group. When the fixed-effects model was used, the pooled analysis showed no significant difference in the miscarriage rate between the two groups (RR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.65, 1.02, I2 = 2.2%) (Table 4; Fig. 2F). In addition, the study-design subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis showed no significant differences (Table 5). However, the heterogeneity for the RCT group was high (I2 = 59.3%) compared with the case–control study group (I2 = 0.0%). No publication bias was detected.

Ectopic pregnancy rate

Eleven case–control studies [17, 23, 25,26,27,28, 30, 32,33,34,35] were included in the comparison of ectopic pregnancy rate for a total of 1619 patients. Ectopic pregnancy rate occurred in 21 of 686 (3.06%) events in the pretreatment of GnRH-a patients and in 39 of 933 (4.18%) events in the no-pretreatment patients. No significant differences were found between the case and control groups, and the RR was 1.11 (95% CI 0.69–1.78, I 2 = 0.0%) in the fixed effects model (Table 4). Using Begg’s test, we did not detect any significant bias.

Multiple pregnancy rate

Six studies [17, 18, 23, 30, 34, 35] were included to evaluate the effect of pretreatment of GnRH-a before FET on multiple pregnancy rates with 774 participants, one RCT [18] and five case–control studies [17, 23, 30, 34, 35]. For the patients with PCOS, the multiple pregnancy rate was 34.08% (121/355) in the pretreatment of GnRH-a group, which was higher than the control group (29.83%, 125/419). However, no significant differences were found between the two groups with using the fixed effects model, and the RR was 1.09 (95% CI 0.89–1.33, I 2 = 0.0%) (Table 4). No publication bias was detected.

Live birth rate

In the analysis, only four related studies [17,18,19, 29] were included in the comparison of live birth rates for a total of 709 patients including three RCTs [18, 19, 29] and one case–control study [17]. Live birth occurred in 141 of 331 (42.60%) events in the pretreatment of GnRH-a group and in 153 of 378 (40.48%) events in the no-pretreatment group. The difference between the GnRH-a pretreatment group and control group did not reach statistical significance for live birth rate, and the RR was 1.06 (95% CI 0.71–1.56, I2 = 74.0%) in the random effects model (Table 4). A sensitivity analysis was carried out considering the high heterogeneity. Similar to previous result, no significant difference was identified after removing the article with the highest heterogeneity [29]. No publication bias was detected and the funnel plot was symmetrical.

Discussion

Comparing large samples of GnRH-a pretreatment following artificial cycle of estrogen preparing endometrium to controls for PCOS patients undergoing FET treatments, the study was aimed to explore the efficacy of GnRH-a pretreatment in PCOS patients and the function for the pregnancy outcomes. Seventeen studies with 3640 patients were included in this study. The results indicated that endometrial preparation by using GnRH agonist pretreatment before FET might be a better choice for PCOS patients. When comparing to no-pretreatment group, the endometrium thickness increased among women with PCOS after using the GnRH-agonist before. Moreover, the implantation and clinical pregnancy rates also elevated significantly for PCOS patients undergoing FET by dealing with GnRH-a. However, no significant effects were discovered for the miscarriage rates, ectopic pregnancy rates, multiple pregnancy rates, or live birth rates, even in the subgroup analyses.

PCOS is a complex endocrine disorder which is characterized by chronic anovulation and hyperandrogenism. Despite several treatments were said to improve ovulation problems, overall pregnancy rates were still not ideal. The implantation failure and spontaneous miscarriages also occurred frequently [31]. And endometrial dysfunction and hyperandrogenism might lead to the implantation failure. For the PCOS, frozen embryo transfer in a freeze-only cycle strategy was a preferred option due to the low probability of OHSS comparing to fresh transfer strategy. In order to achieve optimal synchronisation between the embryo and endometrium, a suitable endometrial preparation protocol for PCOS patients in FET cycles was important. However, little attention had been paid to the development of an appropriate endometrial preparation protocol for FET in PCOS population. Patients with PCOS are often anovulatory, simple artificial cycle regimen with using estrogens and progesterone was usually applied for PCOS patients. However, the peri-implantation embryonic and uterine development might be interfered by the high levels of testosterone resulting in implantation failure. In 2003, Cermik D et al. [36] found that HOX10 gene was essential for endometrial development and regulated negatively by testosterone, which suggested that hyperandrogenism was related to poor endometrial receptivity in PCOS patients. Besides steroid administration, endometrial preparation for FET with GnRH-a pretreatment had also been recommended to improve implantation rate. One possible mechanism was the inhibition of endometrial inflammation and enhanced expression of endometrial adhesion molecules after using of GnRH-a pretreatment, through suppressing the serum LH, E2 level and GnRH–HCG axis function [16].

In 2013, a systematic review and meta-analysis including 20 studies presented inefficacy in the clinical pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy rate or live birth rate after using different protocols in preparing the endometrium whether pretreatment with GnRH agonist or not in FET patients [37]. Because of limited studies focused on whether GnRH-a pretreatment using for endometrial preparation in PCOS patients undergoing FET, little consensus was shown on the effective strategies of endometrium preparation protocols of FET for PCOS patients. However, for women with ovulatory cycles, recent findings might result in a change in clinical practice, towards a preference for natural cycle FET (NC-FET) over artificial cycle FET (AC-FET) cycles. In 2022, Roelens C et al. [38] carried out a retrospective cohort study which showed that a higher incidence of pre-eclampsia in AC-FET versus NC-FET (11.8% vs. 3.7%). In 2023, a meta-analysis [39] including 30 studies also suggested that NC-FET decreased the risk of adverse obstetric and neonatal outcomes comparing to AC-FET including lower rates of hypertensive disease during pregnancy and preeclampsia. Thus, preparing the endometrium for FET, we should not only take the basic question of effectiveness into account, but also consider its safety.

In our analysis, we aimed to explore the efficiency of GnRH agonist before endometrial preparation for FET especially for PCOS patients. Recently, only four RCTs had been carried out for endometrial preparation protocols about GnRH agonist pretreatment in PCOS populations undergoing FET treatments. In 2020, one of them [19] randomized 343 patients with PCOS undergoing FET for endometrial preparation to or not to receive GnRH-a pretreatment, the results showed that the similar outcomes were found in implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate and miscarriage rate between cases and controls, only with increased cost for patients with GnRH-a pretreatment. There should be some factors for this RCT that cannot be ignored affecting the results. Regarding the ovarian stimulation protocols used in the fresh cycle, a high heterogeneity was presented. In addition, more than one FET cycle (range 1–2) per patient were included which did not rule out the interference of other factors. At the same time, another RCT [16] was carried out. And the results suggested that endometrial preparation using GnRH agonist improved ongoing pregnancy and decreased miscarriage rate by reducing androgen level in PCOS patients and improving the receptivity. The conclusion of this study [16] was supported by several retrospective studies [17, 24]. But more scholars [31,32,33, 35] had argued that pretreatment with GnRH agonist might improve pregnancy rates, but not miscarriage rates in PCOS women.

By including a relatively large sample size, our study was the first meta-analysis to compare artificial cycle with or without GnRH agonist pretreatment for patients with PCOS. Our data also showed that GnRH agonist pretreatment before FET had a crucial role in pregnancy outcomes for PCOS patients by increasing endometrium thickness and improving implantation rates. The strengths of our study not only included the RCTs, but also case–control studies, which could reduce the selection bias. Moreover, due to the inclusion of a large number of researches, the results of our study were more comprehensive and more reliable than other single studies. In the midst of heated debate, our findings provided a tentative answer that clinicians could use to better guide the treatment scheduling.

Although some high-quality studies with large sample sizes were included, several limitations were clear. In general, randomized case–control studies are more convincing than case–control studies. However, no significant difference had been identified in the RCTs subgroup in this analysis. Only in the case-controlled studies group, GnRH agonist pretreatment was identified to be associated with higher implantation and pregnancy rates compared to no-pretreatment patients. Nevertheless, the high heterogeneity was detected in the RCTs subgroup for miscarriage rate. Some bias might be induced with the high heterogeneity and the exact functions could not be concluded just based on this meta-analysis. Another limitation is the live birth rate, which was the end result of our follow-up. But only four studies focused on the analysis with and without GnRH agonist pretreatment. The limitation of a lack of data should require more studies to follow up live birth rates. In addition, pregnancy-related complications and neonatal outcomes were not analyzed due to the limitation of lack of data. Therefore, further researches are still required to compare the maternal and neonatal safety with using the GnRH agonist pretreatment protocol. Lastly, some confounding factors should also be taken into account in this analysis, such as the different dose of GnRH-a (1.0 mg or 1.875 mg or 3.75 mg used in studies), the different duration and the period of use of GnRH-a pretreatment, the different characteristics of patients, the different types of experimental design, and the different statistical methods. Thus, well-designed RCTs and case–control studies are needed to confirm these results.

Conclusions

For PCOS patients, an endometrial preparation using GnRH agonist pretreatment prior to artificial cycle could improve implantation rates and clinical pregnancy rates compared with the conventional artificial cycle protocol without GnRH-a pretreatment. Therefore, artificial cycle with GnRH-a pretreatment appears to be the better choice for women with PCOS. However, well-designed RCTs are required for confirmation.

References

  1. Liu XY, Yang YJ, Tang CL, et al. Elevation of antimüllerian hormone in women with polycystic ovary syndrome undergoing assisted reproduction: effect of insulin. Fertil Steril. 2019;111:157–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Meczekalski B, Pérez-Roncero GR, López-Baena MT, et al. The polycystic ovary syndrome and gynecological cancer risk. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2020;36:289–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Abraham Gnanadass S, Divakar Prabhu Y, Valsala GA. Association of metabolic and inflammatory markers with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS): an update. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2021;303:631–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Roque M, Nuto Nóbrega B, Valle M, et al. Freeze-all strategy in IVF/ICSI cycles: an update on clinical utility. Panminerva Med. 2019;61:52–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Roque M, Valle M, Guimarães F, et al. Freeze-all policy: fresh vs. frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:1190–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Weinerman R, Mainigi M. Why we should transfer frozen instead of fresh embryos: the translational rationale. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:10–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Glujovsky D, Pesce R, Fiszbajn G, et al. Endometrial preparation for women undergoing embryo transfer with frozen embryos or embryos derived from donor oocytes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(1):CD006359. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006359.pub2. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;10:CD006359.

  8. Liao X, Dong X, Li Z. Does oral contraceptive benefit the IVF/ICSI outcomes? A retrospective cohort study. Int J Clin Exp Patho. 2016;9:11965–71.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Piltonen TT, Chen J, Erikson DW, et al. Mesenchymal stem/progenitors and other endometrial cell types from women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) display inflammatory and oncogenic potential. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013;98:3765–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Morgante G, Massaro MG, Di Sabatino A, et al. Therapeutic approach for metabolic disorders and infertility in women with PCOS. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2018;34:4–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Niu Z, Chen Q, Sun Y, et al. Long-term pituitary downregulation before frozen embryo transfer could improve pregnancy outcomes in women with adenomyosis. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2013;29:1026–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Song J, Duan C, Cai W, et al. Comparison of GnRH-a prolonged protocol and short GnRH-a long protocol in patients with thin endometrium for assisted reproduction: a retrospective cohort study. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2020;14:3673–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Wiwatpanit T, Murphy AR, Lu Z, et al. Scaffold-free endometrial organoids respond to excess androgens associated with polycystic ovarian syndrome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020;105:769–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lee MH, Yoon JA, Kim HR, et al. Hyperandrogenic milieu dysregulates the expression of insulin signaling factors and glucose transporters in the endometrium of patients with polycystic ovary syndrome. Reprod Sci. 2019;4:1933719119833487.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Muasher SJ, Kruithoff C, Simonetti S, et al. Controlled preparation of the endometrium with exogenous steroids for the transfer of frozen-thawed pre-embryos in patients with anovulatory or irregular cycles. Hum Reprod. 1991;6:443–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Aghahoseini M, Alyasin A, Rashidi S, et al. The efficacy of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GNRH) agonist before frozen embryo transfer in improving pregnancy outcome and decreasing miscarriage rate in hyperandrogenic polycystic ovary syndrome women: a randomized clinical trial. Minerva Ginecol. 2020;72:212–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Xie D, Chen F, Xie SZ, et al. Artificial cycle with or without a depot gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist for frozen-thawed embryo transfer: an assessment of infertility type that Is most suitable. Curr Med Sci. 2018;38:626–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Salemi S, Yahyaei A, Vesali S, et al. Endometrial preparation for vitrified-warmed embryo transfer with or without GnRH-agonist pre-treatment in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. Reprod Biomed Online. 2021;43:446–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Luo L, Chen M, Wen Y, et al. Pregnancy outcome and cost-effectiveness comparisons of artificial cycle-prepared frozen embryo transfer with or without GnRH agonist pretreatment for polycystic ovary syndrome: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2021;128:667–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rotterdam EA-SPcwg. Revised 2003 consensus on diagnostic criteria and long-term health risks related to polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Hum Reprod. 2004;19:41–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ozmen B, Sükür YE, Seval MM, et al. Dual suppression with oral contraceptive pills in GnRH antagonist cycles for patients with polycystic ovary syndrome undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;183:137–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Zhang J, Guo H, Liang Y, et al. Effect of three endometrial preparation regimens on clinical outcome of freeze-thaw embryo transfer in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome. Contemp Med. 2020;26:126–7.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Zhang F. Comparative study on clinical effect of different artificial cycle endometrial preparation schemes in freeze-thaw embryo transfer in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome. Chin J of Clinical Rational Drug Use. 2020;13:127–8.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Bai JY, Tan L. Effect of artificial membrane endometrial preparation after downregulation on pregnancy outcome of frozen-thawed embryo transfer in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome. Smart Healthcare. 2020;6:83–4.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Zhu AZ, Wang XS, Ye L, et al. Down regulation combined with estrogen and progesterone improves clinical outcome of frozen-thaw Day 3 embryos transfer in patients with PCOS. J Reprod Med. 2020;29:220–4.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Sun XX, Li H, Li DH, et al. Application of GnRH agonist-HRT endometrial preparation program in PCOS population with first FET transplant failure. J Reprod Med. 2019;28:1147–52.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Li J, Qiao HW, Guan YC, et al. The effect of GnRH-a down-regulated artificial cycle regimen and simple artificial cycle regimen on pregnancy outcome of frozen embryo transplantation in patients with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS). Mod Diagn Treat. 2019;30:1393–5.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. He X, Huang JL, Li B, et al. GnRH agonist combined with hormone replacement therapy does not improve the clinical outcomes of frozen-thawed embryo transfer in PCOS patients: a randomized controlled trial. J Reprod Med. 2019;28:1428–32.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ji XY, Wang JY, Zhao C, et al. Effect of various endometrial preparation protocols in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles on the clinical outcomes of the patients with polycystic ovarian syndrome. J Int Reprod Health/Fam Plan. 2019;38:16–9.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Tsai HW, Wang PH, Lin LT, et al. Using gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist before frozen embryo transfer may improve ongoing pregnancy rates in hyperandrogenic polycystic ovary syndrome women. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2017;33:686–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Zhang JS, Chen HL, Zheng LW, et al. Influence of long-acting GnRH agonist on outcome of frozen thawed embryo transfer cycle in patients with polycystic ovarian syndrome. J Reprod Med. 2017;26:772–6.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Wang XY, Xue PP, Zhang XW, et al. Outcome analysis of cryopreservation embryo transplantation in PCOS patients with different endometrial preparation schemes. Prog Obstet Gynecol. 2015;24:934–6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Jiang C, Zhang C. Improvement of pregnancy outcomes of frozen thawed embryo transfer cycle with GnRHa use followed by hormone replacement in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome. Chin J Fam Plann. 2015;23:455–7.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Xie D, Chen ZL, Zhou R, et al. Clinical outcomes of frozen—thawed embryo transfer cycles after pituitary suppression in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome. J Reprod Med. 2014;23:714–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Cermik D, Selam B, Taylor HS. Regulation of HOXA-10 expression by testosterone in vitro and in the endometrium of patients with polycystic ovary syndrome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003;88:238–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Groenewoud ER, Cantineau AE, Kollen BJ, et al. What is the optimal means of preparing the endometrium in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Updat. 2013;19:458–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Roelens C, Racca A, Mackens S, et al. Artificially prepared vitrified-warmed embryo transfer cycles are associated with an increased risk of pre-eclampsia. Reprod Biomed Online. 2022;44:915–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Zaat TR, Kostova EB, Korsen P, et al. Obstetric and neonatal outcomes after natural versus artificial cycle frozen embryo transfer and the role of luteal phase support: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2023;29:634–54.

Download references

Funding

This study was supported by grants from self-funded research projects by Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region Health Commission (grant numbers Z-A20220363).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Jie Li, Zhong Lin and Sien Mo contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State Key Laboratory of Ultrasound in Medicine and Engineering, College of Biomedical Engineering, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, 400016, China

    Jie Li & Qiuling Shi

  2. The Reproductive Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Nanning, China

    Jie Li, Zhong Lin, Sien Mo, Shujia Wang & Yanmei Li

  3. School of Public Health, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China

    Qiuling Shi

Authors
  1. Jie Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zhong Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sien Mo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shujia Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yanmei Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Qiuling Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JL, ZL, and SJW conceived and designed the research. JL, SEM, and YML analyzed the data. SEM, SJW and JL wrote the “Introduction” and “Discussion”. JL, ZL, and SJW wrote the “Materials and methods” and “Results”. ZL, SEM, SJW, and QLS provided significant advice for the manuscript. JL, SEM, ZL, and QLS were mainly responsible to modify the draft.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qiuling Shi.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, J., Lin, Z., Mo, S. et al. Pretreatment with or without GnRH-agonist before frozen–thawed embryo transfer in patients with PCOS: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Ovarian Res 17, 130 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-024-01410-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-024-01410-7

Keywords

Journal of Ovarian Research

ISSN: 1757-2215

Contact us