Dataset Information

Spermatogenesis of Male Patients with Congenital Hypogonadotropic Hypogonadism Receiving Pulsatile Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Therapy Versus Gonadotropin Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Pulsatile gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) therapy and gonadotropin therapy (GT) were widely used for male patients with congenital hypogonadotropic hypogonadism (CHH), but their efficacy was not well compared before. We conducted this meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of restoring fertility using these two therapies.

Materials and methods

PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were systematically searched for comparative studies evaluating the efficiency of GnRH therapy and GT for male patients with CHH. For continuous outcomes, the weighted mean difference (WMD) was used to measure the difference, whereas the risk ratio with 95% confidence interval was calculated for binary variables.

Results

Overall, eight articles from seven studies with 420 patients enrolled were included in the analysis. Patients from the two different groups were determined to be comparable in age, proportion with Kallmann syndrome, percentage of cryptorchidism and pretreatment hormones (follicular-stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone, and testosterone). GnRH therapy was related to a larger testicular volume (standardized mean difference=-1.43; p=0.01) and earlier spermatogenesis (WMD=-5.30 months; p=0.004) compared to GT. However, the difference in the rate of positive sperm detection (p=0.08), sperm concentration (p=0.37), and pregnancy rate (p=0.11) were not significant. Allergic reactions mostly occurred during GnRH therapy, while GT was related to a higher incidence of gynecomastia and acne.

Conclusions

Compared to GT, GnRH was related to earlier spermatogenesis and less estradiol-related adverse reactions, although there were no significant differences in spermatogenesis rate, sperm concentration, and pregnancy rate. High-quality randomized controlled trials are needed for future research.

SUBMITTER: Wei C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8443979 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCompared to adult studies, studies which involve the treatment of pediatric congenital hypogonadotropic hypogonadism (CHH) are limited and no universal treatment regimen is available. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG)/human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) therapy for treating male adolescents with CHH.MethodsMale adolescent CHH patients were treated with hCG/hMG (n = 20) or a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) pump (n = 21). The treatment was divided into a study phase (0-3 months) and a follow-up phase (3-12 months). The testicular volume (TV), penile length (PL), penis diameter (PD), and sex hormone levels were compared between the two groups. The TV and other indicators between the groups were analyzed using a t-test (equal variance) or a rank sum test (unequal variance).ResultsBefore treatment, there was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of the biochemistry, hormones, and other demographic indicators. After 3 months of treatment, the TV of the hCG/hMG and GnRH groups increased to 5.1 ± 2.3 mL and 4.1 ± 1.8 mL, respectively; however, the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05, t = 1.394). The PL reached 6.9 ± 1.8 cm and 5.1 ± 1.6 cm (P < 0.05, t = 3.083), the PD reached 2.4 ± 0.5 cm and 2.0 ± 0.6 cm (P < 0.05, t = 2.224), respectively, in the two groups. At the end of 6 months of treatment, biomarkers were in normal range in the two groups. Compared with the GnRH group, the testosterone (T) level and growth of PL and PD were significantly greater in the hCG/hMG group (all P < 0.05). While the TV of both groups increased, the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05, t = 0.314). After 9 to 12 months of treatment, the T level was higher in the hCG/hMG group. Other parameters did not exhibit a statistical difference.ConclusionsThe hCG/hMG regimen is feasible and effective for treating male adolescents with CHH. The initial 3 months of treatment may be a window to optimally observe the strongest effects of therapy. Furthermore, results from the extended time-period showed positive outcomes at the 1-year mark; however, the long-term effectiveness, strengths, and weaknesses of the hCG/hMG regimen require further research.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02880280; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02880280.

Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate the clinical characteristics of patients diagnosed with congenital hypogonadotropic hypogonadism (CHH) caused by FGFR1 (fibroblast growth factor receptor 1) gene mutations and to evaluate the effect of gonadotropin or pulsatile gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) therapy on spermatogenesis.MethodsA retrospective study was conducted on CHH patients admitted to Peking Union Medical College Hospital from January 2012 to March 2020. Clinical features and laboratory results were recorded. Testicular volume and sperm count responding to gonadotropin and pulsatile GnRH therapy were compared between the FGFR1 mutation group and the mutation-negative group.Results(1) FGFR1 mutation group included 14 patients who received sperm-induction therapy, and the mutation-negative group enrolled 25 CHH patients. (2) The incidence of cryptorchidism was 50.0% (7/14) and 12.0% (3/25) in the FGFR1 group and the mutation-negative group, respectively (p=0.019). The baseline testicular volume of the FGFR1 mutation group was smaller than that of the mutation-negative group, 1.6 (0.5-2.0) mL vs. 2 (1.75-4) mL (p=0.033). The baseline luteinizing hormone (LH), Follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), and testosterone levels were similar between the two groups. (3) Using the Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests for the analysis of spermatogenesis, it was found that there was no significant difference in the first sperm appearance between the FGFR1 mutation group and the mutation-negative group (χ 2 = 1.974, p=0.160). The median time of spermatogenesis in the FGFR1 mutation group was longer than that in the mutation-negative group, 16 months vs. 10 months, respectively. The cumulative spermatogenesis success rate at 12 months in the FGFR1 mutation group (35.71%) was lower than that in the mutation-negative group (68.75%) (p=0.047). The sperm concentration in the mutation-negative group was more easily achieved for different thresholds compared with that in the FGFR1 mutation group, but no significant difference was observed (p > 0.05) between the two groups. The last follow-up examination showed that the testicular volume was 7.00 (4.75-12.00) mL and 10.56 ± 4.82 mL (p=0.098), the ejaculate volume of sperm was 2.20 (1.40-2.26) mL and 3.06 ± 1.42 mL (p=0.175), and the sperm concentration was 7.19 (1.00-9.91) million/mL and 18.80 (4.58-53.62) million/mL (p=0.038) in the FGFR1 mutation and mutation-negative groups, respectively, while the sperm motility (A%, A + B%, and A + B + C%) was similar for the two groups (p=0.839, 0.909, and 0.759, respectively). The testosterone level during treatment was 366.02 ± 167.03 ng/dL and 362.27 ± 212.86 ng/dL in the FGFR1 mutation and mutation-negative groups, respectively (p=0.956).ConclusionPatients with FGFR1 mutations have a higher prevalence of cryptorchidism and smaller testicular volume. Although patients with FGFR1 mutations have a similar rate of success for spermatogenesis compared to that of the mutation-negative patients, a longer treatment period was required and a lower sperm concentration was achieved.