Effect of 17alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate before embryo transfer on the outcome of in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer: a randomized trial

Interventions to optimize embryo transfer in women undergoing assisted conception: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Several interventions and techniques are suggested to improve the outcome of embryo transfer (ET) in assisted conception. However, there remains no consensus on the optimal practice, with high variations among fertility specialists.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

We conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aiming to identify effective interventions that could be introduced around the time of ET to improve reproductive outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL) from inception until March 2021 using a multi-stage search strategy of MeSH terms and keywords, and included all RCTs that evaluated an intervention in the 24-h period before/after ET in women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Our primary outcome was clinical pregnancy rate post-ET confirmed as viable pregnancy on ultrasound scan. We assessed the risk of bias in included trials and extracted data in duplicate. We pooled data using a random-effect meta-analysis and reported using risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. We explored publication bias and effect modifiers using subgroup analyses.

OUTCOMES

Our search yielded 3685 citations of which we included 188 RCTs (38 interventions, 59 530 participants) with a median sample size of 200 (range 26-1761). The quality of included RCTs was moderate with most showing a low risk of bias for randomization (118/188, 62.8%) and attrition (105/188, 55.8%) but there was a significant risk of publication bias (Egger's test P = 0.001). Performing ET with ultrasound guidance versus clinical touch (n = 24, RR 1.265, 95% CI 1.151-1.391, I2 = 38.53%), hyaluronic acid versus routine care (n = 9, RR 1.457, 95% CI 1.197-1.261, I2 = 46.48%) and the use of a soft versus hard catheter (n = 27, RR 1.122, 95% CI 1.028-1.224, I2 = 57.66%) led to higher clinical pregnancy rates. Other pharmacological add-ons also showed a beneficial effect including granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF: n = 4, RR 1.774, 95% CI 1.252-2.512, I2 = 0), Atosiban (n = 7, RR 1.493, 95% CI 1.184-1.882, I2 = 68.27%) and hCG (n = 17, RR 1.232, 95% CI 1.099-1.382, I2 = 57.76%). Bed rest following ET was associated with a reduction in clinical pregnancy (n = 6, RR 0.857, 95% CI 0.741-0.991, I2 = 0.01%). Other commonly used interventions, such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, prophylactic antibiotics, acupuncture and cervical mucus removal, did not show a significant benefit on reproductive outcomes. Our effect estimates for other important outcomes, including miscarriage and live birth, were limited by the varied reporting across included RCTs.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

Using ultrasound guidance, soft catheters and hyaluronic acid at the time of ET appears to increase clinical pregnancy rates. The use of Atosiban, G-CSF and hCG showed a trend towards increased clinical pregnancy rate, but larger trials are required before adopting these interventions in clinical practice. Bed rest post-ET was associated with a reduction in clinical pregnancy and should not be recommended.

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.

Timing luteal support in assisted reproductive technology: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the available published randomized controlled trial data regarding timing of P supplementation during the luteal phase of patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART).

DESIGN

A systematic review.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENT(S)

Undergoing IVF.

INTERVENTION(S)

Different starting times of P for luteal support.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Clinical pregnancy (PR) and live birth rates.

RESULT(S)

Five randomized controlled trials were identified that met inclusion criteria with a total of 872 patients. A planned meta-analysis was not performed because of a high degree of clinical heterogeneity with regard to the timing, dose, and route of P. Two studies compared P initiated before oocyte retrieval versus the day of oocyte retrieval and PRs were 5%-12% higher when starting P on the day of oocyte retrieval. One study compared starting P on day 6 after retrieval versus day 3, reporting a 16% decrease in pregnancy in the day 6 group. Trials comparing P start times on the day of oocyte retrieval versus 2 or 3 days after retrieval showed no significant differences in pregnancy.

CONCLUSION(S)

There appears to be a window for P start time between the evening of oocyte retrieval and day 3 after oocyte retrieval. Although some studies have suggested a potential benefit in delaying vaginal P start time to 2 days after oocyte retrieval, this review could not find randomized controlled trials to adequately assess this. Further randomized clinical trials are needed to better define P start time for luteal support after ART.

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.