Comparative study of the efficacy and tolerability of two vaginal progesterone formulations, Crinone⁎ 8% gel and Utrogestan† capsules, used for luteal support

Does luteal phase progesterone supplementation affect physical and psychosocial well-being among women undergoing modified natural cycle-FET? A sub-study of a randomized controlled trial

STUDY QUESTION

Are there any differences in physical and psychosocial well-being among women undergoing modified natural cycle frozen embryo transfer (mNC-FET) with or without vaginal progesterone as luteal phase support (LPS)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Women undergoing mNC-FET with vaginal progesterone supplementation were more likely to experience physical discomfort but there was no difference in psychosocial well-being between the two groups.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

mNC-FET can be carried out with or without vaginal progesterone as LPS, which has several side-effects. It is commonly known that fertility treatment can cause stress and psychosocial strain, however, most studies on this subject are conducted in fresh cycle regimes, which differ from NC-FET and results may not be comparable.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This is a sub-study of an ongoing RCT investigating whether progesterone supplementation has a positive effect on live birth rate in mNC-FET. The RCT is conducted at eight fertility clinics in Denmark from 2019 and is planned to end primo 2024. The sub-study is based on two questionnaires on physical and psychosocial well-being added to the RCT in August 2019. On the time of data extraction 286 women had answered both questionnaires.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Women who had answered both questionnaires were included in the sub-study. Participants were equally distributed, with 143 in each of the two groups. Participants in both groups received the same questionnaires at two time-points: on cycle day 2-5 (baseline) and after blastocyst transfer. Participants in the progesterone group had administered progesterone for 7 days upon answering the second questionnaire. All items in the questionnaires were validated. Items on psychosocial well-being originate from the Copenhagen Multi-Centre Psychosocial Infertility-Fertility Problem Stress Scale (COMPI-FPSS) and from the Mental Health Inventory-5.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Women receiving progesterone experienced more vaginal itching and/or burning than women in the non-progesterone group (P < 0.001). Women in the progesterone group also experienced more self-reported vaginal yeast infection, this was, however, not significant after adjustment for multiple testing (P/adjusted P = 0.049/0.881). No differences regarding psychosocial well-being were found between the two groups. Within the progesterone group, a shift toward feeling less 'downhearted and blue' was found when comparing response distribution at baseline and after blastocyst transfer (P < 0.001).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

All items on physical symptoms were self-reported. The item on vaginal yeast infection was therefore not diagnosed by a doctor. Inclusion in the study required a few extra visits to the clinic, participants who felt more burdened by fertility treatment might have been more likely to decline participation. Women who experienced a lot of side-effects to progesterone prior to this FET cycle, might be less likely to participate.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Our results are in line with previous known side-effects to progesterone. Physical side-effects of progesterone should be considered before administration.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The RCT is fully supported by Rigshospitalet's Research Foundation and a grant from Gedeon Richter. Gedeon Richter were not involved in the design of protocol nor in the conduction of the study or analysis of results. A.P., L.P., and N.I.-C.F. report grants from Gedeon Richter, Ferring and Merck with no relations to this study. N.I.-C.F. has received travel support from Ferring, Merck A/S, & Gideon Richter, and is the head of the steering committee for the Danish Fertility Guidelines made by the members of from the Danish Fertility Society. A.P. reports consulting fees from Preglem, Novo Nordisk, Ferring, Gedeon Richter, Cryos, & Merck A/S, honoraria from Gedeon Richter, Ferring, Merck A/S, Theramex, and Organon, has received travel support from Gedeon Richter (payment to institution), participated on an advisory board for Preglem and was loaned an embryoscope from Gedeon Richter to their institution. A.L.S. has stock options for Novo Nordisk B A/S. B.A. have received unrestricted grant from Gedeon Richter Nordic and Merck and honoraria for lectures from Gedeon Richter, Merck, IBSA, and Marckyrl Pharma.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The RCT is registered on ClinicalTrials. gov (NCT03795220) and in EudraCT (2018-002207-34).

Advances in progesterone delivery systems: Still work in progress?

Progesterone is a natural steroidal sex hormone in the human body, mainly secreted through the adrenal cortex, ovary, and placenta. In humans, progesterone is essential for endometrium transformation in the uterus at the time of ovulation and maintenance of pregnancy. When the body cannot produce enough progesterone for specific ailments, it is administered via different routes such as oral, vaginal, transdermal, topical, parental, and intranasal routes. Although progesterone is commercially available in multiple conventional formulations, low solubility, less permeability and extensive hepatic first-pass metabolism are the major constraints to its delivery. These challenges can be overcome substantially by formulating progesterone into novel delivery systems like lipid carriers, polymeric carriers, hydrogels, several nanocarriers, depot and controlled release systems. Various research papers and patents have been published in the last two decades on progesterone delivery systems; clinical studies were conducted to establish safety and efficacy. This review is focused on the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic parameters of progesterone, its delivery constraints, and various advanced delivery systems of progesterone.

The exogenous progesterone-free luteal phase: two pilot randomized controlled trials in IVF patients

RESEARCH QUESTION

Is the reproductive outcome similar after gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) trigger followed by luteal human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) boluses compared with HCG trigger and a standard luteal phase support (LPS)?

DESIGN

Two open-label pilot randomized controlled trials (RCT) with 250 patients from 2014 to 2019, with a primary outcome of ongoing pregnancy per embryo transfer. Patients with ≤13 follicles on the trigger day were randomized (RCT 1) to: Group A (n = 65): GnRHa trigger followed by a bolus of 1500 IU HCG s.c. on the oocyte retrieval day (ORD) and 1000 IU HCG s.c. 4 days later, and no vaginal LPS; or Group B (n = 65): 6500 IU HCG trigger, followed by a standard vaginal progesterone LPS. Patients with 14-25 follicles on the trigger day were randomized (RCT 2) to Group C (n = 60): GnRHa trigger followed by 1000 IU HCG s.c. on ORD and 500 IU HCG s.c. 4 days later, and no vaginal LPS; or Group D (n = 60): 6500 IU HCG trigger and a standard vaginal LPS.

RESULTS

In RCT 1, the ongoing pregnancy rate was 44% (22/50) in the GnRHa group versus 46% (25/54) in the HCG trigger group (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.62-1.45). No ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) was seen in Groups A or B. In RCT 2, the ongoing pregnancy rate was 51% (25/49) in the GnRHa group versus 60% (31/52) in the HCG trigger group (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.60-1.22). The OHSS rates were 3.3% and 6.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Although a larger-scale study is needed before standard clinical implementation, the present study supports that the exogenous progesterone-free LPS is efficacious, simple and patient-friendly.

The role of luteal support during IVF: a qualitative systematic review

The aim of this review is to provide qualitative evidence-based synthesis regarding efficacy of luteal-phase support on fertility outcome in women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) with respect to clinical or live birth rates and pregnancy loss rates. Although the need of luteal phase support in IVF/ICSI cycles is well-known, the optimal start, dosage, route and the duration of the luteal phase support is still subject of debate. Data suggest that the optimal period to start with the luteal phase support would be between 24-72 hours after oocyte-retrieval and should continue at least until a positive pregnancy test is achieved. However, the majority of IVF-centers worldwide provide progesterone support up to 8 weeks of pregnancy. Among the well-established routes of luteal support, oral dydrogesterone and subcutaneous progesterone represent new and interesting routes of progesterone administration. The current studies support these routes of progesterone administration use in terms of comparable pregnancy rates and pregnancy loss rates to vaginal and intramuscular progesterone. Furthermore, the acceptance and tolerability among patients seems to be even better. In the frozen-thawed embryo transfer, dydrogesterone and vaginal progesterone are not effective as monotherapy treatments; however, when combined there is no reason to avoid one or the other in this setting.

Oral dydrogesterone versus intravaginal micronized progesterone gel for luteal phase support in IVF: a randomized clinical trial

STUDY QUESTION

Is oral dydrogesterone 30 mg daily non-inferior to 8% micronized vaginal progesterone (MVP) gel 90 mg daily for luteal phase support in IVF?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Oral dydrogesterone demonstrated non-inferiority to MVP gel for the presence of fetal heartbeats at 12 weeks of gestation (non-inferiority margin 10%).

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The standard of care for luteal phase support in IVF is the use of MVP; however, it is associated with vaginal irritation, discharge and poor patient compliance. Oral dydrogesterone may replace MVP as the standard of care if it is found to be efficacious with an acceptable safety profile.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Lotus II was a randomized, open-label, multicenter, Phase III, non-inferiority study conducted at 37 IVF centers in 10 countries worldwide, from August 2015 until May 2017. In total, 1034 premenopausal women (>18 to <42 years of age) undergoing IVF were randomized 1:1 (stratified by country and age group), using an Interactive Web Response System, to receive oral dydrogesterone 30 mg or 8% MVP gel 90 mg daily.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Subjects received either oral dydrogesterone (n = 520) or MVP gel (n = 514) on the day of oocyte retrieval, and luteal phase support continued until 12 weeks of gestation. The primary outcome measure was the presence of fetal heartbeats at 12 weeks of gestation, as determined by transvaginal ultrasound.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Non-inferiority of oral dydrogesterone was demonstrated, with pregnancy rates in the full analysis sample (FAS) at 12 weeks of gestation of 38.7% (191/494) and 35.0% (171/489) in the oral dydrogesterone and MVP gel groups, respectively (adjusted difference, 3.7%; 95% CI: −2.3 to 9.7). Live birth rates in the FAS of 34.4% (170/494) and 32.5% (159/489) were obtained for the oral dydrogesterone and MVP gel groups, respectively (adjusted difference 1.9%; 95% CI: −4.0 to 7.8). Oral dydrogesterone was well tolerated and had a similar safety profile to MVP gel.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The analysis of the results was powered to consider the ongoing pregnancy rate, but a primary objective of greater clinical interest may have been the live birth rate. This study was open-label as it was not technically feasible to make a placebo applicator for MVP gel, which may have increased the risk of bias for the subjective endpoints reported in this study. While the use of oral dydrogesterone in fresh-cycle IVF was investigated in this study, further research is needed to investigate its efficacy in programmed frozen-thawed cycles where corpora lutea do not exist.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This study demonstrates that oral dydrogesterone is a viable alternative to MVP gel, due to its comparable efficacy and tolerability profiles. Owing to its patient-friendly oral administration route, dydrogesterone may replace MVP as the standard of care for luteal phase support in fresh-cycle IVF.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS(S)

This study was sponsored and supported by Abbott. G.G. has received investigator fees from Abbott during the conduct of the study. Outside of this submitted work, G.G. has received non-financial support from MSD, Ferring, Merck-Serono, IBSA, Finox, TEVA, Glycotope and Gedeon Richter, as well as personal fees from MSD, Ferring, Merck-Serono, IBSA, Finox, TEVA, Glycotope, VitroLife, NMC Healthcare, ReprodWissen, Biosilu, Gedeon Richter and ZIVA. C.B. is the President of the Belgian Society of Reproductive Medicine (unpaid) and Section Editor of Reproductive BioMedicine Online. C.B. has received grants from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, participated in an MSD sponsored trial, and has received payment from Ferring, MSD, Biomérieux, Abbott and Merck for lectures. G.S. has no conflicts of interest to be declared. A.P. is the General Secretary of the Indian Society of Assisted Reproduction (2017–2018). B.D. is President of Pune Obstetric and Gynecological Society (2017–2018). D.-Z.Y. has no conflicts of interest to be declared. Z.-J.C. has no conflicts of interest to be declared. E.K. is an employee of Abbott Laboratories GmbH, Hannover, Germany and owns shares in Abbott. C.P.-F. is an employee of Abbott GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden, Germany and owns shares in Abbott. H.T.’s institution has received grants from Merck, MSD, Goodlife, Cook, Roche, Origio, Besins, Ferring and Mithra (now Allergan); and H.T. has received consultancy fees from Finox-Gedeon Richter, Merck, Ferring, Abbott and ObsEva.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02491437 (clinicaltrials.gov).

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

08 July 2015.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLLMENT

17 August 2015.

Patient experience in a randomized trial of a weekly progesterone vaginal ring versus a daily progesterone gel for luteal support after in vitro fertilization

OBJECTIVE

To assess patient experience and convenience of using progesterone vaginal ring (VR) versus vaginal gel for women requiring luteal phase support during in vitro fertilization (IVF).

DESIGN

Post hoc analysis of a prospective, randomized, single-blind, multicenter, phase 3 clinical trial.

SETTING

Twenty-two U.S. IVF centers.

PATIENT(S)

Women undergoing IVF (N = 1,297).

INTERVENTION(S)

Randomization to weekly VR or daily gel the day after egg retrieval for up to 10 weeks, with fresh embryo transfer IVF per site-specific procedures.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Patient satisfaction questionnaire completed at final study visit.

RESULT(S)

In the women who were taking ≥1 dose of either VR (n = 647) or gel (n = 650), >97% reported that learning to use the formulation, remembering to take it at the correct time, and using it as prescribed was "easy" or "somewhat easy." More VR than gel users reported noninterference with daily activity (93.3% vs. 74.7%, P<.001), sexual comfort (80.3% vs. 67.8%, P<.001), and sexual desire (73.8% vs. 61.8%, P<.001), as well as not being bothered during sexual intercourse (66.9% vs. 39.2%, P<.001). More gel than VR users reported no difficulty with application (97.4% vs. 80.9%, P<.001). Among women who had previously used progesterone during IVF, more VR users than gel users preferred their currently assigned treatment to their previous treatment (91.4% vs. 83.0%, P=.03).

CONCLUSION(S)

Weekly progesterone VR and daily progesterone gel were easy to use, with limited impact on quality of life. Overall, the VR appeared to interfere less with daily life, social activities, and sexual activity although the gel was less difficult or stressful to apply.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00615251.

Hormonal medication in medically assisted reproduction: a systematic review of assessments from patients

Several hormonal fertility medications have comparable effectiveness. A literature review was conducted into patients' assessments regarding seven medication characteristics including 'side effects' and 'ease of use'. Medline, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched for female fertility patients' written assessments of a hormonal medication. The tools used were appraised and common (i.e. ≥10%) unpleasant consequences were distinguished from rare ones. The 35 eligible studies did not rely on valid and reliable tools and did not provide patient assessments regarding all seven medication characteristics for any of the globally used medications. Evidence on medications for oocyte triggering was absent and for induction of pituitary quiescence it was scarce. Regarding medications for ovarian stimulation and luteal support, evidence on general side effects (mostly headache), local side effects (mostly pain), 'interference with home life' and 'impact on psychological wellbeing' was found. Evidence on 'ease of use' and 'required education' was only identified for medication for ovarian stimulation. Evidence on 'interference with work life' and 'compliance worry' was absent. This review calls for randomized controlled trials questioning patients with valid and reliable tools. In the meantime, this review's summary of the best available evidence can be integrated in decision aids facilitating personalized and informed medication choices.

The role of Natural Cycle IVF in assisted reproduction

Natural Cycle IVF (NC-IVF) with and without modifications is being increasingly performed. NC-IVF and conventional gonadotropin-stimulated IVF (cIVF) should not be understood as competing treatments, but as complementary treatments with different target groups and to some extent other indications. NC-IVF is particularly interesting for couples who wish to save money, wish a treatment with as few risks as possible and for women who would like to avoid selection and cryopreservation of embryos. NC-IVF therefore contributes to the concept of individualized and patient-oriented therapy. The time to pregnancy is slightly longer than with conventional IVF. NC-IVF is particularly suitable for younger women and for women with a very low ovarian reserve. In this article, the principles of NC-IVF, i.e. monofollicular IVF without gonadotropin stimulation, are described and the technical differences to cIVF, advantages and disadvantages, perinatal outcome and indications for NC-IVF are highlightened.

Oral dydrogesterone for luteal phase support in fresh in vitro fertilization cycles: a new standard?

Oral dydrogesterone has been used for luteal phase support on an empirical basis since the early days of in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. Systematic comparisons of oral dydrogesterone with vaginal progesterone, so far considered to be the standard of care, started to appear in the middle 2000s. Recently, a large, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy phase III trial on the use of daily 30 mg oral dydrogesterone versus daily 600 mg micronized vaginal progesterone for LPS in IVF was published. This company-sponsored trial confirmed the efficacy findings from previous independent researchers and firmly established the noninferiority of daily 30 mg oral dydrogesterone for luteal phase support. Despite oral administration and first pass through the liver, dydrogesterone was as well tolerated as vaginal progesterone in safety analyses. Moreover, no new fetal safety concerns have arisen from that trial. Given the widespread preference of women for an oral compound, dydrogesterone may well become the new standard for luteal phase support in fresh embryo transfer IVF cycles.

Follicular flushing in natural cycle IVF does not affect the luteal phase - a prospective controlled study

In contrast to multifollicular IVF, follicular flushing seems to increase the efficacy of monofollicular IVF treatments such as natural cycle IVF (NC-IVF). However, because follicular flushing causes loss of granulosa cells, it might negatively affect luteal phase length and endocrine function of the luteal body. A prospective cohort Phase II study was performed in 24 women undergoing NC-IVF. Women underwent a reference cycle with human chorionic gonadotrophin-induced ovulation without follicle aspiration and analysis of the length of the luteal phase and luteal concentrations of progesterone and oestradiol. In addition, they underwent a NC-IVF cycle which was performed identically but follicles were aspirated and flushed three times. The luteal phase was shorter in 29.2%, equal in 16.7% and longer in 50.0% of cases following flushing of the follicles. Overall, neither difference in luteal phase length was significant [median duration (interquartile range) in reference cycle: 13 (12; 14.5), IVF (flushing) cycle: 14 (12.5; 14.5), median difference (95% CI): 0.5 (-0.5 to 1.5)] nor median progesterone and oestradiol concentrations. In conclusion, follicular flushing in NC-IVF affects neither the length of the luteal phase nor the luteal phase concentrations of progesterone and oestradiol, questioning the need for luteal phase supplementation.

Vaginal use of micronized progesterone for luteal support.A randomized study comparing Utrogestan® and Crinone® 8

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Luteal phase physiology is distorted by in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles using gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists and antagonists, Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation leads to luteal phase defect and for this reason, luteal phase support is now an integral part of IVF/ICSI-ET programs. The support is provided by hCG, progesterone or GnRH-a. This study compared the efficiency, safety and tolerance of two vaginal micronized progesterones, Utrogestan and Crinone 8%.

METHODS

111 women, 18-40 years old, FSH < 10 IU/L and normal uterus findings were included. The efficiency of the two preparations to provide luteal support was evaluated by the fertilization, implantation, pregnancy and take-home baby rates. The safety was compared through the results of vaginal findings and vaginal inflammation markers before and after treatment. Comparison of tolerance was made by evaluating 21 subjective patient questionnaire parameters.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the preparations in terms of efficiency or safety though Crinone 8% was better tolerated.

CONCLUSION

The outcomes of this study suggest that a vaginal gel with micronized progesterone (Crinone 8%) is the optimal choice at this time for luteal support.

Phase III trial of 8% vaginal progesterone gel for luteal phase support in Japanese women undergoing in vitro fertilization and fresh embryo transfer cycles

Aim

This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of vaginal progesterone gel that was administered daily for luteal phase support as part of in vitro fertilization/embryo transfer (IVF/ET) cycles in Japanese women.

Methods

This was a phase III, multicenter, open-label, single-arm trial in Japanese women undergoing IVF/ET, using the Japanese Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2009 registry as a historical control. The primary objective was to demonstrate the non-inferiority, with regard to the clinical pregnancy rate per ET, of vaginal progesterone gel that was administered once daily, compared with the historical standard value in IVF/ET cycles in Japan. The biochemical pregnancy (positive serum β-hCG pregnancy test but no clinical pregnancy) rate per ET also was investigated, as were the safety and tolerability of the vaginal progesterone gel.

Results

Of the 178 women who were enrolled, 123 underwent IVF/ET. The clinical pregnancy rate per ET was non-inferior in the prospective arm, compared with the historical population. The biochemical pregnancy rate per ET was 7.3%. The safety profile of the vaginal progesterone gel was as expected, with no new safety issue identified.

Conclusion

The vaginal progesterone gel was efficacious, with a safety profile as expected, in this study in Japanese women undergoing IVF/ET cycles.

The impact of progesterone supplementation on pregnancy rates after intrauterine insemination in patients developing a single follicle

The objective was to determine whether progesterone support affects pregnancy rates in patients who develop a single follicle. This was a non-randomized prospective controlled study performed on 591 intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles that developed a single follicle; 337 women received 100 mg oral progesterone daily. The pregnancy rate was 24.3%, or 82 out of 337, in the group receiving progesterone support compared with 14.96%, or 254 out of 591, in the group with no progesterone support. IUI luteal phase supplementation with oral progesterone may improve clinical pregnancy rates when begun the day after insemination.

Luteal phase support for assisted reproduction cycles

BACKGROUND

Progesterone prepares the endometrium for pregnancy by stimulating proliferation in response to human chorionic gonadotropin(hCG) produced by the corpus luteum. This occurs in the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. In assisted reproduction techniques(ART), progesterone and/or hCG levels are low, so the luteal phase is supported with progesterone, hCG or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists to improve implantation and pregnancy rates.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the relative effectiveness and safety of methods of luteal phase support provided to subfertile women undergoing assisted reproduction.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched databases including the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and trial registers. We conducted searches in November 2014, and further searches on 4 August 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of luteal phase support using progesterone, hCG or GnRH agonist supplementation in ART cycles.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95%confidence intervals (CIs) for each comparison and combined data when appropriate using a fixed-effect model. Our primary out come was live birth or ongoing pregnancy. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

Ninety-four women RCTs (26,198 women) were included. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias in most domains. The main limitations in the evidence were poor reporting of study methods and imprecision due to small sample sizes.1. hCG vs placebo/no treatment (five RCTs, 746 women)There was no evidence of differences between groups in live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.12, three RCTs,527 women, I2 = 24%, very low-quality evidence, but I2 of 61% was found for the subgroup of ongoing pregnancy) with a random effects model. hCG increased the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (1 RCT, OR 4.28, 95% CI 1.91 to 9.6, low quality evidence).2. Progesterone vs placebo/no treatment (eight RCTs, 875 women)Evidence suggests a higher rate of live birth or ongoing pregnancy in the progesterone group (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.86, five RCTs, 642 women, I2 = 35%, very low-quality evidence). OHSS was not reported.3. Progesterone vs hCG regimens (16 RCTs, 2162 women)hCG regimens included comparisons of progesterone versus hCG and progesterone versus progesterone + hCG. No evidence showed differences between groups in live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.38, five RCTs, 833 women, I2 = 0%, low quality evidence) or in the risk of OHSS (four RCTs, 615 women, progesterone vs hCG OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.34; four RCTs,678 women; progesterone vs progesterone plus hCG, OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.26, low-quality evidence).4. Progesterone vs progesterone with oestrogen (16 RCTs, 2577 women)No evidence was found of differences between groups in live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.38, nine RCTs,1651 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence) or OHSS (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.63, two RCTs, 461 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence).5. Progesterone vs progesterone + GnRH agonist (seven RCTs, 1708 women)Live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates were lower in the progesterone-only group and increased in women who received progester one and one or more GnRH agonist doses (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.81, nine RCTs, 2861 women, I2 = 55%, random effects, low quality evidence). Statistical heterogeneity for this comparison was high because of unexplained variation in the effect size, but the direction of effect was consistent across studies. OHSS was reported in one study only (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 3.01, 1 RCT, 300 women, very low quality evidence).6. Progesterone regimens (45 RCTs, 13,814 women)The included studies reported nine different comparisons between progesterone regimens. Findings for live birth or ongoing pregnancy were as follows: intramuscular (IM) versus oral: OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.66 (one RCT, 40 women, very low-quality evidence);IM versus vaginal/rectal: OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.5 (seven RCTs, 2309 women, I2 = 71%, very low-quality evidence); vaginal/rectal versus oral: OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.69 (four RCTs, 857 women, I2 = 32%, low-quality evidence); low-dose versus high-dose vaginal: OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11 (five RCTs, 3720 women, I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence); short versus long protocol:OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.36 (five RCTs, 1205 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence); micronised versus synthetic: OR 0.9, 95%CI 0.53 to 1.55 (two RCTs, 470 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence); vaginal ring versus gel: OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.36 (oneRCT, 1271 women, low-quality evidence); subcutaneous versus vaginal gel: OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14 (two RCTs, 1465 women,I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence); and vaginal versus rectal: OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.54 (one RCT, 147 women, very low-quality evidence). OHSS rates were reported for only two of these comparisons: IM versus oral, and low versus high-dose vaginal. No evidence showed a difference between groups.7. Progesterone and oestrogen regimens (two RCTs, 1195 women)The included studies compared two different oestrogen protocols. No evidence was found to suggest differences in live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates between a short and a long protocol (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.43, one RCT, 910 women, low-quality evidence) or between a low dose and a high dose of oestrogen (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.13, one RCT, 285 women, very low-quality evidence).Neither study reported OHSS.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Both progesterone and hCG during the luteal phase are associated with higher rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy than placebo.The addition of GnRHa to progesterone is associated with an improvement in pregnancy outcomes. OHSS rates are increased with hCG compared to placebo (only study only). The addition of oestrogen does not seem to improve outcomes. The route of progester one administration is not associated with an improvement in outcomes.

Vaginal micronized progesterone capsule versus vaginal progesterone gel for lutheal support in normoresponder IVF/ICSI-ET cycles

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcomes of luteal phase support by micronized progesteron vaginal capsule 600mg/day and progesterone vaginal gel 180mg/day in the normoresponder IVF/ICSI-ET cycles of the patients down-regulated via GnRH agonist long protocol or fixed antagonist protocol below 40 years of age.

METHODS

A total of 463 normoresponder cycles between January 2013 and December 2013 were retrospectively analyzed. Those with a BMI>28 kg/m(2), any kind of uterine, ovarian or adnexial pathology, any significant systemic, endocrine or metabolic disease or who were reported as azoospermia, were excluded from the study. The patients were grouped according to the usage of micronized progesterone vaginal capsule 600mg/day (Group 1) or progesterone vaginal gel 180mg/day (Group 2) as luteal phase support. Treatment cycle characteristics and pregnancy outcomes were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Group-I included 220 cycles and group 2 included 243 cycles. Although the MII oocyte percentage among the total number of MII oocytes was significantly higher in Group-II (77.5% and 80.2%; p=0.034), positive ß-hCG (32.3% and 21.8%; p=0.015) and clinical pregnancy (27.3% and 17.7%; p=0.018) rates were significantly higher in Group-I. No difference was observed between groups regarding the ongoing pregnancy rates (23.2% and 17.3%; p=0.143).

CONCLUSION

Micronized progesterone vaginal capsule 600mg daily used for luteal support in the IVF/ICSI-ET cycles was observed to significantly increase the biochemical and clinical pregnancy rates compared to progesterone vaginal gel 180mg daily. However, no difference was observed between two groups regarding ongoing pregnancy rates.

Oral dydrogesterone versus vaginal progesterone gel in the luteal phase support: randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare efficacy, satisfaction and tolerability of oral dydrogesterone and micronized vaginal progesterone gel used for luteal supplementation.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial. A total of 853 infertile women undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment in University Hospital Center "Sisters of Mercy", Zagreb, Croatia. Luteal support was provided as Crinone 8%(®) vaginal progesterone gel (90mg) administered daily, or oral dydrogesterone Duphaston(®) (2× 10mg) administered two times daily. Progesterone was administered from the day of oocyte retrieval (day 0) till pregnancy test or in a case of pregnancy, until week 10.

RESULTS

The on-going pregnancy rates were comparable between Crinone 8%(®) vaginal progesterone gel and oral dydrogesterone - Duphaston(®) (28.1% versus 30.3%; OR 1.11 (0.82-1.49 with 95% CI)). Overall satisfaction and tolerability were significantly higher in the dydrogesterone group than in the Crinone group. Vaginal bleeding, interference with coitus and local adverse side effects such as vaginal irritation and discharge occurred significantly more in Crinone group than in dydrogesterone group.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral dydrogesterone is effective drug, well tolerated and accepted among patients and can be considered for routine luteal support.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01178931; www.clinicaltrials.gov.

[Sustained-release progesterone vaginal suppositories 3-development and clinical feasibility testing]

  Although progesterone vaginal suppositories (hospital-formulated) are used for the treatment of infertility, their half-life is so short that multiple doses are required. In this study, we aimed to develop sustained-release vaginal suppositories suitable for clinical use which maintain an effective blood concentration by once-a-day treatment, and prepared 7 types of suppository containing the sustained-release progesterone tablets to characterize their sustained-release performance. We selected one candidate suppository among them, taking recovery rate, reproducibility, and hardness, as well as the sustained-release performance into consideration. The shell of the selected suppository is composed of VOSCO S-55 and progesterone for rapid release. The molded progesterone tablets for sustained release were embedded inside. The distribution of the weight and content of the suppository was limited, and the release rate of progesterone was significantly slower than that of a conventional progesterone suppository prepared in our hospital. The single-dose administration of the selected suppository to five healthy volunteers led to significant extension of the blood concentration. We also confirmed the rise of the basic value by multiple administration. The simulation comparison suggested that the blood progesterone concentration is controlled by once-a-day administration of the selected suppository better than twice-a-day administration of the conventional suppository. In conclusion, the sustained-release vaginal suppository prepared in this study was considered to be useful for clinical treatment.

Vaginal progesterone in risk reduction of preterm birth in women with short cervix in the midtrimester of pregnancy

Preterm birth is a major health problem for the neonate, family, country, and society in general. Despite many risk factors being identified for women destined to deliver preterm, short cervical length detected on transvaginal ultrasound is the most plausible, practical and sensitive risk factor for prediction of spontaneous preterm birth. The definition of short cervix has varied in various studies, but most commonly accepted is ≤2.5 cm in the midtrimester of pregnancy, though risk of spontaneous preterm birth (sPTB) increases as the cervical length decreases. Vaginal progesterone, a naturally occurring steroid hormone, is the most bioavailable form of progesterone for uterine and cervical effects with the fewest side effects. Multiple prospective studies have consistently shown its benefits in decreasing sPTB rate in women with asymptomatic midtrimester short cervix. The safety for mother and fetus, and tolerability of vaginal progesterone, particularly the gel form, is also well established. Vaginal progesterone is a minimally invasive intervention that is not painful and is very safe, with reasonable cost where the benefits (even if argued to be small) clearly outweigh the risks. Thus there should be little hesitation for implementation of universal transvaginal cervical length screening and preventive vaginal progesterone treatment for women with short cervix.

Endocrinological insights into different in vitro fertilization treatment aspects

The science of reproductive endocrinology/in vitro fertilization (IVF) has moved forward considerably since the first IVF baby was born in 1978. IVF was originally indicated for women with tubal factor infertility, but it has now become the treatment for couples with unexplained subfertility, male subfertility, cervical factor, failed ovulation induction, endometriosis or unilateral tubal pathology. IVF was initially performed with the single dominant ovarian follicle produced during a spontaneous menstrual cycle. This was very inefficient and pregnancy rates were dismal. Consequently, superovulation protocols using parenteral gonadotrophins to induce maturation of multiple follicles were soon adopted worldwide. In addition, any supernumerary embryos remaining after embryo transfer may be cryopreserved for future embryo transfers without the need for another fresh IVF cycle. A greater understanding of IVF endocrinology has led to improved IVF pregnancy outcomes and satisfaction for the anxious parents. However, with the greater success of IVF treatment, new complications associated with the treatment arise, namely the ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Ovarian hyperstimulation can be associated with severe morbidity and may be even fatal. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome is an iatrogenic condition secondary to medical stimulation of the ovary, and was virtually unknown until IVF treatment was initiated. This article will discuss the recent developments in IVF treatment endocrinology and protocols, as well as prevention/treatment of its complications.

Pregnancy outcomes in oocyte donation recipients: vaginal gel versus intramuscular injection progesterone replacement

PURPOSE

Compare outcomes with vaginal gel versus intramuscular progesterone replacement in donor oocyte recipients.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective analysis (January 2004-December 2006) evaluated pregnancy outcomes (serum human chorionic gonadotropin, implantation, clinical pregnancy, delivery, total pregnancy loss rates) for 225 recipients of embryos from donor (aged <32 years) oocytes. Vaginal progesterone gel (Crinone® 8%; 90 mg twice daily; n = 105) or intramuscular progesterone (50 mg once daily; n = 120) was started the afternoon of oocyte retrieval and continued until a negative pregnancy test or 10 weeks' gestation.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences between groups for the five pregnancy outcomes; numerical results favored vaginal progesterone in all cases. Confidence intervals showed vaginal gel was within, or <1% from, a noninferiority limit of 10% versus intramuscular progesterone for four of five pregnancy outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Pregnancy outcomes were comparable for progesterone replacement with vaginal gel and intramuscular progesterone in an oocyte donation program.

Oral micronized progesterone combined with vaginal progesterone gel for luteal support

The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy and satisfaction rate of combined therapy of oral micronized progesterone capsules and vaginal progesterone gel versus monotherapy with vaginal progesterone gel in luteal support. A case-control study was performed on a total number of 370 women aged <45 years undergoing IVF-ET treatment. The patients received either combination of Crinone 8% vaginal gel, 90 mg daily dose and Utrogestan oral capsules 3 x 100 mg, or Crinone 8% vaginal gel, 90 mg daily. Progesterone supplementation begun on the day of oocyte retrieval and continued until pregnancy was tested and in the case of pregnancy until week 8. The comparable rates of ongoing pregnancies were noted with use of combined-progesterone therapy (39.5%) and progesterone-monotherapy (33.5%). Abortion rate (6.4% vs. 15.6%) was significantly lower with the use of combined therapy. Tolerability and satisfaction of both supplements was almost equal but bleeding occurred more frequently in the progesterone-monotherapy group. In conclusion, the efficacy, satisfaction and tolerability of combined and vaginal progesterone supplements were comparable, but bleeding in early pregnancy and abortion rate presented more frequently with the use of vaginal progesterone.

Luteal phase support for assisted reproduction cycles

BACKGROUND

Progesterone prepares the endometrium for pregnancy by stimulating proliferation in response to human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), which is produced by the corpus luteum. This occurs in the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. In assisted reproduction techniques (ART) the progesterone or hCG levels, or both, are low and the natural process is insufficient, so the luteal phase is supported with either progesterone, hCG or gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists. Luteal phase support improves implantation rate and thus pregnancy rates but the ideal method is still unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2004 (Daya 2004).

OBJECTIVES

To determine the relative effectiveness and safety of methods of luteal phase support in subfertile women undergoing assisted reproductive technology.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), LILACS, conference abstracts on the ISI Web of Knowledge, OpenSigle for grey literature from Europe, and ongoing clinical trials registered online. The final search was in February 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of luteal phase support in ART investigating progesterone, hCG or GnRH agonist supplementation in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles. Quasi-randomised trials and trials using frozen transfers or donor oocyte cycles were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data per women and three review authors independently assessed risk of bias. We contacted the original authors when data were missing or the risk of bias was unclear. We entered all data in six different comparisons. We calculated the Peto odds ratio (Peto OR) for each comparison.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-nine studies with a total of 16,327 women were included. We assessed most of the studies as having an unclear risk of bias, which we interpreted as a high risk of bias. Because of the great number of different comparisons, the average number of included studies in a single comparison was only 1.5 for live birth and 6.1 for clinical pregnancy.Five studies (746 women) compared hCG versus placebo or no treatment. There was no evidence of a difference between hCG and placebo or no treatment except for ongoing pregnancy: Peto OR 1.75 (95% CI 1.09 to 2.81), suggesting a benefit from hCG. There was a significantly higher risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) when hCG was used (Peto OR 3.62, 95% CI 1.85 to 7.06).There were eight studies (875 women) in the second comparison, progesterone versus placebo or no treatment. The results suggested a significant effect in favour of progesterone for the live birth rate (Peto OR 2.95, 95% CI 1.02 to 8.56) based on one study. For clinical pregnancy (CPR) the results also suggested a significant result in favour of progesterone (Peto OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.61) based on seven studies. For the other outcomes the results indicated no difference in effect.The third comparison (15 studies, 2117 women) investigated progesterone versus hCG regimens. The hCG regimens were subgrouped into comparisons of progesterone versus hCG and progesterone versus progesterone + hCG. The results did not indicate a difference of effect between the interventions, except for OHSS. Subgroup analysis of progesterone versus progesterone + hCG showed a significant benefit from progesterone (Peto OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.79).The fourth comparison (nine studies, 1571 women) compared progesterone versus progesterone + oestrogen. Outcomes were subgrouped by route of administration. The results for clinical pregnancy rate in the subgroup progesterone versus progesterone + transdermal oestrogen suggested a significant benefit from progesterone + oestrogen. There was no evidence of a difference in effect for other outcomes.Six studies (1646 women) investigated progesterone versus progesterone + GnRH agonist. We subgrouped the studies for single-dose GnRH agonist and multiple-dose GnRH agonist. For the live birth, clinical pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy rate the results suggested a significant effect in favour of progesterone + GnRH agonist. The Peto OR for the live birth rate was 2.44 (95% CI 1.62 to 3.67), for the clinical pregnancy rate was 1.36 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.66) and for the ongoing pregnancy rate was 1.31 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.67). The results for miscarriage and multiple pregnancy did not indicate a difference of effect.The last comparison (32 studies, 9839 women) investigated different progesterone regimens:intramuscular (IM) versus oral administration, IM versus vaginal or rectal administration, vaginal or rectal versus oral administration, low-dose vaginal versus high-dose vaginal progesterone administration, short protocol versus long protocol and micronized progesterone versus synthetic progesterone. The main results of this comparison did not indicate a difference of effect except in some subgroup analyses. For the outcome clinical pregnancy, subgroup analysis of micronized progesterone versus synthetic progesterone showed a significant benefit from synthetic progesterone (Peto OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.96). For the outcome multiple pregnancy, the subgroup analysis of IM progesterone versus oral progesterone suggested a significant benefit from oral progesterone (Peto OR 4.39, 95% CI 1.28 to 15.01).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review showed a significant effect in favour of progesterone for luteal phase support, favouring synthetic progesterone over micronized progesterone. Overall, the addition of other substances such as estrogen or hCG did not seem to improve outcomes. We also found no evidence favouring a specific route or duration of administration of progesterone. We found that hCG, or hCG plus progesterone, was associated with a higher risk of OHSS. The use of hCG should therefore be avoided. There were significant results showing a benefit from addition of GnRH agonist to progesterone for the outcomes of live birth, clinical pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy. For now, progesterone seems to be the best option as luteal phase support, with better pregnancy results when synthetic progesterone is used.

Comparison of oral dydrogestrone with progesterone gel and micronized progesterone for luteal support in 1,373 women undergoing in vitro fertilization: a randomized clinical study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of oral dydrogesterone with that of micronized vaginal P gel and micronized P capsule for luteal supplementation.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized clinical study.

SETTING

Institute of Reproductive Medicine, Kolkata, India.

PATIENT(S)

A total of 1,373 infertile women undergoing IVF participated.

INTERVENTION(S)

Micronized P gel, P capsule, and oral dydrogesterone were administered for luteal support and compared.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Demographic profile and pregnancy and miscarriage rates.

RESULT(S)

The overall pregnancy rate and miscarriage rate were comparable among the three groups.

CONCLUSION(S)

Oral dydrogesterone seems to be a promising drug for luteal support in woman undergoing IVF.

Efficacy of micronised vaginal progesterone versus oral dydrogestrone in the treatment of irregular dysfunctional uterine bleeding: a pilot randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The vaginal route is more effective than the other drug delivery routes for some specific indications.

AIM

To compare the efficacy of a vaginal progesterone preparation with that of oral dydrogesterone.

METHODS

A total of 69 women with irregular dysfunctional uterine bleeding were randomly assigned into one of two groups: oral dydrogesterone group (n = 35) and vaginal progesterone group (n = 34). At the end of a three-month treatment period, the women were re-evaluated. The endometrial histology findings and menstrual cycle characteristics were used as primary outcome measures. Pearson chi-square and Fisher's exact test were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Findings from 54 eligible women were evaluated. There was no statistically significant difference in both menstrual recordings and endometrial histology results between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Vaginal micronised progesterone could be an alternative to oral preparations in the treatment of dysfunctional uterine bleeding. This needs to be further evaluated in adequately controlled randomised trials against other effective treatments.

Crinone vaginal gel is equally effective and better tolerated than intramuscular progesterone for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer cycles: a prospective randomized study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of Crinone vaginal gel and intramuscular progesterone (IMP) for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) with respect to pregnancy rates and outcomes, and to assess patient satisfaction with both products.

DESIGN

Prospective randomized trial.

SETTING

University-affiliated IVF unit.

PATIENT(S)

Women under age 40 years with day-3 follicle-stimulating hormone levels <15 mIU/mL undergoing their first, second, or third IVF cycles on gonadotropin releasing-hormone (GnRH) down-regulation protocols.

INTERVENTION(S)

Luteal phase supplementation with either Crinone vaginal gel or IMP; phone survey regarding patient satisfaction with Crinone vaginal gel and IMP.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Pregnancy rates, ongoing/delivered, failed pregnancy rates, and product satisfaction scores for patients supplemented with Crinone vaginal gel and with IMP.

RESULT(S)

Four hundred sixty-eight patients were randomized, and 407 completed the study. The patients were randomized on the day of oocyte retrieval to receive either Crinone vaginal gel or IMP for luteal phase support. Pregnancy, ongoing/delivered, and failed pregnancy rates were similar between the Crinone and IMP treatment arms (OR [95% CI]: 1.2 [0.8, 1.8], 1.1 [0.8, 1.7], 1.0 [0.6, 1.7], respectively). On a scale of 1 to 5, patient satisfaction scores were statistically significantly higher with Crinone vaginal gel than with IMP (4.4 ± 0.9 vs. 2.8 ± 1.2).

CONCLUSION(S)

Crinone vaginal gel and IMP are equally effective for luteal phase support in IVF, but Crinone is better tolerated by patients.

Luteal supplementation in in vitro fertilization: more questions than answers

OBJECTIVE

To update clinicians on different regimens of luteal phase supplementation in IVF-stimulated cycles and to identify areas that need further research in this subject.

DESIGN

Literature review and critical analysis of published studies on luteal phase supplementation during the last 20 years.

CONCLUSION(S)

Luteal phase supplementation in IVF-stimulated cycles, both in gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist and antagonist protocols, is considered an essential requirement for optimal success rates. The date of initiation and discontinuation of supplemented hormones is not adequately studied in the literature. In most major controlled and randomized studies, there are no significant differences in success rates with progesterone supplementation alone, progesterone and estradiol, progesterone and human chorionic gonadotropin, and human chorionic gonadotropin alone. Success rates seem similar with intramuscular and vaginal progesterone administration with patient preference for the vaginal route. The optimal dose of progesterone has not been studied in a scientific way in the literature. The use of gonadotropin releasing hormone agonists for luteal phase supplementation in antagonist cycles appears to be promising, and is worthy of further investigation.

Intravaginal oestrogen and progestin administration: advantages and disadvantages

The vagina provides a local and a systemic route for delivering hormones for systemic effects and uterine targeting. Due to the 'uterine first-pass effect', hormones concentrate in the uterus and nearby tissues with low systemic exposure. Vaginal oestrogens, progesterone/progestins and danazol are currently used to obtain local (vagina and urethra), regional (uterus, pelvic structures) and systemic effects or contraception. Very low dosages of transvaginal oestrogens in the forms of creams, tablets and rings are effective for vaginal atrophy and urinary incontinence. To avoid endometrial stimulation, no deep vaginal application of low dosages for less than 6 months is recommended. For postmenopausal hormonal therapy by the vaginal route, progesterone is delivered directly to the uterus; the target organ for which it is designed. Worldwide, vaginal progesterone is employed for luteal phase support. Contraceptive vaginal rings offer the advantages of non-oral administration and sustained release. Vaginal administration of steroids is a promising option for the treatment of endometriosis.

An update of luteal phase support in stimulated IVF cycles

Stimulated IVF cycles are associated with luteal phase defect. In order to overcome this, different doses, durations and types of luteal phase support (LPS) have been evaluated. There is still no agreement regarding the optimal supplementation scheme. The aim of this paper is to assess the past and the current clinical practices of luteal supplementation in IVF. The databases of Medline and PubMed were searched to identify relevant publications. LPS with human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) [n=262, odds ratio (OR) 2.72 (95%), confidence interval (CI) 1.56-4.90, P<0.05] or progesterone (n=260, OR 1.57 CI 1.13, 2.17, P<0.05) results in an increased pregnancy rate compared with placebo, however, hCG is associated with increased risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Natural micronized progesterone is not efficient if taken orally. The data on oral dydrogesterone are still conflicting. Vaginal and intra muscular progesterone have comparable outcomes. The addition of estradiol (E2) seems to be beneficial in long GnRH agonist protocol (implantation rate 39.6% with E2 compared with no E2; P<0.05) but not in the short GnRH agonist and GnRH antagonist protocol. Despite the early promising results, it is too early to recommend the use of GnRH agonist in LPS. LPS should cease on the day of positive HCG. Since the cause of luteal phase defect in IVF appears to be related to the supraphysiological levels of steroids, milder stimulation protocols should be advocated in order to eventually overcome the luteal phase defect.