Impact of different controlled ovarian stimulation protocols on the physical and psychological burdens in women undergoing in vitro fertilization/intra cytoplasmic sperm injection

• Main Authors: Deenadayal Mamata, Subrat K Ray, Kumar Pratap, Parikh Firuza, Ashish Ramesh Birla, Banker Manish
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2015-01-01
• Series: Journal of Human Reproductive Sciences
• Subjects: GnRH Agonist; GnRH Antagonist; In vitro fertilization; OHSS; physical and psychological burden
• Online Access: http://www.jhrsonline.org/article.asp?issn=0974-1208;year=2015;volume=8;issue=2;spage=86;epage=92;aulast=Mamata
• ISSN: 0974-1208; 1998-4766

Context: Infertility treatment involves a considerable amount of physical and psychological burden which may impact the outcome. Aim: The objective was to understand the amount of physical and psychological burden in women undergoing their first in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intra cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles. Setting and Design: Multi-center, prospective, parallel, observational study. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted across 12 IVF centers in India. A total of 692 women undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation as a part of the first cycle IVF/ICSI completed the trial. Women were recruited in 2 groups based on type of treatment (Group A - gonadotropin-releasing hormone [GnRH] antagonist; Group B - GnRH agonist) and were asked to fill questionnaires during the 2 treatment visits. Results: The mean changes between Visit 1 (baseline) and Visit 2 in anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) scores in Group A for anxiety and depression were −0.5 (3.67), −0.1 (3.57) respectively and for Group B were −0.4 (3.68), 0.1 (3.67) respectively, which was not statistically significant. In Group A, the mean (±standard deviation [SD]) Hopkins Symptom Check List (HSCL) score was 17.9 (±5.17) in visit 1 and 19.1 (±5.45) Visit 2. The change between visits was 1.1 (P < 0.0001) with higher score reflecting higher somatic distress symptoms. In Group B, the mean (±SD) HSCL score was 18.2 (±5.19) in Visit 1 and 18.8 (±5.23) in visit 2. The change between visits was 0.6 (P < 0.0014). The difference of the mean change in physical burden between Group A and Group B was not statistically significant. Conclusion: A significant impact in both treatment protocols with respect to the physical burden was found between Visit 1 and Visit 2 but no difference in physical or psychological burden between the two treatment groups was observed.