Dataset Information

Single-centre retrospective analysis of growth hormone supplementation in IVF patients classified as poor-prognosis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patients undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) receive various adjuvant therapies in order to enhance success rates, but the true benefit is actively debated. Growth hormone (GH) supplementation was assessed in poor-prognosis women undergoing fresh IVF transfer cycles.

Methods

Data were retrospectively analysed from 400 IVF cycles, where 161 women received GH and 239 did not.

Results

Clinical pregnancy, live birth rates and corresponding ORs and CIs were significantly greater with GH, despite patients being significantly older with lower ovarian reserve. Patient's age, quality of transferred embryo and GH were the only significant independent predictors of clinical pregnancy (OR: 0.90, 5.00 and 2.49, p<0.002, respectively) and live birth chance (OR: 0.91, 3.90 and 4.75, p<0.014, respectively). GH increased clinical pregnancy chance by 3.42-fold (95%?CI 1.82 to 6.44, p<0.0005) and live birth chance by 6.16-fold (95%?CI 2.83 to 13.39, p<0.0005) after adjustment for maternal age, antral follicle count and transferred embryo quality.

Conclusion

These data provided further evidence to indicate that GH may support more live births, particularly in younger women. It also appears that embryos generated under GH have a better implantation potential, but whether the biological mechanism is embryo-mediated or endometrium-mediated is unclear.

SUBMITTER: Keane KN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5640074 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Single-centre retrospective analysis of growth hormone supplementation in IVF patients classified as poor-prognosis.

Keane Kevin N KN Yovich John L JL Hamidi Anahita A Hinchliffe Peter M PM Dhaliwal Satvinder S SS

BMJ open 20171008 10

<h4>Background</h4>Patients undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) receive various adjuvant therapies in order to enhance success rates, but the true benefit is actively debated. Growth hormone (GH) supplementation was assessed in poor-prognosis women undergoing fresh IVF transfer cycles.<h4>Methods</h4>Data were retrospectively analysed from 400 IVF cycles, where 161 women received GH and 239 did not.<h4>Results</h4>Clinical pregnancy, live birth rates and corresponding ORs and CIs were signif ...[more]

PMID: 28993395

Similar Datasets

Project description:Backgrounds: Growth hormone (GH) was used for many years to increase ovarian response in poor ovarian responders (PORs). Although meta-analysis suggested that GH therapy improve early clinical outcomes, the benefit of GH usage on chance of live birth was still widely debated. This study was to determine whether or not GH supplementation influences the live birth rate (LBR). Methods: A total of 3,080 expected PORs receiving and not receiving (control) GH adjuvant therapy at Peking University Third Hospital from January 2017 to March 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. The basal characteristics of patients were compared using analysis of variance (continuous variables) and categorical variables were evaluated with a chi-square test. Logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate potential associations of LBR with GH treatment while adjusting other confounding factors. Results: No statistically significant differences existed in miscarriage rate (5.3 vs. 12.5%; p = 0.076) and LBR (37.7 vs. 34.5%; p = 0.426) in young expected PORs (< 35 years of age). Moreover, no significant differences existed in the miscarriage rate (25.6 vs. 23.3%; p = 0.681), and LBR (17.8 vs. 17.9%; p = 0.977) in the old expected PORs (≥35 years of age). Logistic regression suggested that GH adjuvant therapy did not improve the LBR in young (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.88-1.85; p = 0.203) and elderly expected PORs (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.82-1.76; p = 0.342), while GH was not associated with risk of miscarriage in young (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.11-1.24; p = 0.108) and elderly expected PORs (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.43-1.93; p = 0.813). In subgroup analysis, GH treatment significantly increased the day 3 embryos available rate in the subgroup of young PORs with the long down-regulation (63.11 vs. 49.35%; p = 0.004), while significantly reduced the risk of miscarriage in the subgroup of young PORs with GnRH antagonist protocol (0.00 vs. 12. %; p = 0.023). There was no significant difference for LBR in PORs with GnRH antagonist (<35 years [35.19 vs. 28.45%; p = 0.183]; ≥35 years [12.96 vs. 14.03%; p = 0.707]), GnRH-a long (<35 years [33.33 vs. 36.99%; p = 0.597]; ≥35 years [17.44 vs. 20.28%; p = 0.574]) and long down-regulation (<35 years [58.82 vs. 41.90%; p = 0.193]; ≥35 years [43.33 vs. 25.30%; p = 0.065]). Conclusions: Growth hormone treatment may not improve live birth rate in expected poor responders.

Dataset Information

Single-centre retrospective analysis of growth hormone supplementation in IVF patients classified as poor-prognosis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Single-centre retrospective analysis of growth hormone supplementation in IVF patients classified as poor-prognosis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure