Luteal phase support using either Crinone 8% or Utrogest: results of a prospective, randomized study

New concepts and difficulties with progesterone supplementation in the luteal phase

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Management of the luteal phase (LP) in assisted reproductive cycles has aroused interest in recent years. The reason is that it seems that the individualization of LP support may be necessary, since the concept of 'one size fits all' does not apply to this treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies carried out in hormone replacement therapy cycles (also called artificial cycles) have shown that serum levels of progesterone (P) are related to pregnancy outcomes. This represents a milestone in the management of artificial cycles (AC), because until a few years ago it was believed that serum levels did not really reflect the effectiveness of P, which is why they were neglected. However, it is not as straightforward as it seems, because the interpretation of serum progesterone values will depend on the type of progesterone used and its route of administration. Likewise, the findings observed in AC are not applicable to what occurs in a fresh transfer cycle after ovarian stimulation or an embryo transfer in the context of a natural cycle.

SUMMARY

In this manuscript, we will summarize the current situation in LP management.

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.

A questionnaire-based audit to assess overall experience and convenience among patients using vaginal progesterone tablets (Lutigest®) for luteal phase support during IVF treatment

Purpose

The aim of this audit was to assess the overall experience and patient convenience of vaginal progesterone tablets (Lutigest^®, marketed as Endometrin^® in the USA) used for luteal phase support (LPS) during in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment.

Patients and methods

This questionnaire-based audit included responses from 100 patients undergoing IVF treatment at six IVF clinics in the UK from September 2015 to November 2016. Fourteen days after starting progesterone supplementation for LPS during their IVF treatment, patients rated overall experience and perceived convenience of the prescribed progesterone by completing a questionnaire.

Results

Of the 100 patients included, 96 received vaginal progesterone tablets for LPS. Overall, 53.1% (51/96) indicated that the progesterone tablets were “very easy” to use; 42.7% (41/96) and 44.8% (43/96) found it “very convenient” or “neither convenient or inconvenient” to administer the tablet, respectively. Overall experience with using progesterone tablets was rated as “very comfortable” by 34.4% (33/96) and “neither comfortable or uncomfortable” by 56.3% (54/96) of patients. The applicator was used by 93.8% (90/96) of patients to administer the tablet, and 86.5% (83/96) indicated that the applicator was easy to clean for repeated use. A total of 33 patients had a previous IVF cycle during which they were prescribed vaginal progesterone pessaries for LPS. Compared with progesterone pessaries, the majority found treatment with progesterone tablets to be more comfortable (60.6%; 20/33) and more convenient (57.6%; 19/33) and indicated that the progesterone tablet was their preferred progesterone formulation for LPS (60.6%; 20/33).

Conclusion

These findings offer insights into real-world patient experiences with the progesterone vaginal tablet formulation. The results suggest overall patient convenience, ease, and comfort with using progesterone vaginal tablets for LPS. The majority of patients found progesterone vaginal tablets more convenient and comfortable to use compared with progesterone pessaries.

A Phase III randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy, safety and tolerability of oral dydrogesterone versus micronized vaginal progesterone for luteal support in in vitro fertilization

STUDY QUESTION

Is oral dydrogesterone 30 mg daily (10 mg three times daily [TID]) non-inferior to micronized vaginal progesterone (MVP) 600 mg daily (200 mg TID) for luteal support in in vitro fertilization (IVF), assessed by the presence of fetal heartbeats determined by transvaginal ultrasound at 12 weeks of gestation?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Non-inferiority of oral dydrogesterone versus MVP was demonstrated at 12 weeks of gestation, with a difference in pregnancy rate and an associated confidence interval (CI) that were both within the non-inferiority margin.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

MVP is routinely used in most clinics for luteal support in IVF, but it is associated with side effects, such as vaginal irritation and discharge, as well as poor patient acceptance. Dydrogesterone may be an alternative treatment due to its patient-friendly oral administration.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Lotus I was an international Phase III randomized controlled trial, performed across 38 sites, from August 2013 to March 2016. Subjects were premenopausal women (>18 to <42 years of age; body mass index (BMI) ≥18 to ≤30 kg/m²) with a documented history of infertility who were planning to undergo IVF. A centralized electronic system was used for randomization, and the study investigators, sponsor's study team, and subjects remained blinded throughout the study.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

In total, 1031 subjects were randomized to receive either oral dydrogesterone (n = 520) or MVP (n = 511). Luteal support was started on the day of oocyte retrieval and continued until 12 weeks of gestation (Week 10), if a positive pregnancy test was obtained at 2 weeks after embryo transfer.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

In the full analysis set (FAS), 497 and 477 subjects in the oral dydrogesterone and MVP groups, respectively, had an embryo transfer. Non-inferiority of oral dydrogesterone was demonstrated, with pregnancy rates at 12 weeks of gestation of 37.6% and 33.1% in the oral dydrogesterone and MVP treatment groups, respectively (difference 4.7%; 95% CI: −1.2–10.6%). Live birth rates of 34.6% (172 mothers with 213 newborns) and 29.8% (142 mothers with 158 newborns) were obtained in the dydrogesterone and MVP groups, respectively (difference 4.9%; 95% CI: −0.8–10.7%). Oral dydrogesterone was well tolerated and had a similar safety profile to MVP.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The analysis of the results was powered to consider the clinical pregnancy rate, but the live birth rate may be of greater clinical interest. Conclusions relating to the differences between treatments in live birth rate, observed in this study, should therefore be made with caution.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Oral dydrogesterone may replace MVP as the standard of care for luteal phase support in IVF, owing to the oral route being more patient-friendly than intravaginal administration, as well as it being a well tolerated and efficacious treatment.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

Sponsored and supported by Abbott Established Pharmaceuticals Division. H.T.’s institution has received grants from Merck, MSD, Goodlife, Cook, Roche, Besins, Ferring and Mithra (now Allergan) and H.T. has received consultancy fees from Finox, Ferring, Abbott, ObsEva and Ovascience. G.S. has nothing to disclose. E.K. is an employee of Abbott GmbH. G.G. has received investigator fees from Abbott during the conduct of the study; outside of this submitted work, G.G. has received personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, Ferring, Merck-Serono, Finox, TEVA, Glycotope, as well as personal fees from VitroLife, NMC Healthcare LLC, ReprodWissen LLC and ZIVA LLC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01850030 (clinicaltrials.gov).

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

19 April 2013.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLLMENT

23 August 2013.

Dydrogesterone support following assisted reproductive technique (ART) reduces the risk of pre-eclampsia

BACKGROUND

Pre-eclampsia (PE) contributes to poor maternal morbidity and mortality. Progesterone is hypothesised to reduce the risk of PE.

AIM

To determine the effect of progestogen supplementation during assisted reproductive technique (ART) in reducing the incidence of PE.

METHOD

A retrospective comparative analysis among 1140 pregnancies between January 2006 and March 2015 conducted in a tertiary centre. A total of 570 pregnancies who conceived following ART with progesterone supplementation (study group) and an age-matched spontaneous pregnancies, without progesterone supplementation (control group, n=570) were included in the analysis. The study group received progesterone support following ART or intrauterine insemination (IUI) until 14-16 weeks' gestation.

RESULTS

The rate of PE was significantly lower in the study group compared to control group (8.4% vs. 14.2%, p<0.05). Women supplemented with dydrogesterone only showed a lower PE incidence as compared to women received a combination of dydrogesterone and hydroxyprogesterone caproate, however, it was not statistically significant (6.9% vs. 9.9%; 6.9%; p=0.2).

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.

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.

Serum estradiol and progesterone in the mid-luteal phase predict clinical pregnancy outcome in IVF/ICSI cycles

In this prospective study, we tested the hypothesis if E2 and P serum levels significantly differ during the luteal phase following in vitro-fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) therapy in conception (CC) versus non-conception (NC) cycles, and their potential in the prediction of pregnancy at the earliest point in time. Serum was sampled from the day of embryo transfer (ET) and throughout the luteal phase until ET + 14 from patients consecutively enrolling for IVF/ICSI therapy. The luteal phase was supported by vaginal P suppositories only, clinical pregnancies were detected by ultrasound and followed up until the 20th week. Overall pregnancy rate was 30.9% constituting the two study groups of CC (n = 22) and NC cycles (n = 49). Significantly, higher E2 (3326 ± 804 versus 1072 ± 233 pmol/l, p = 0.014) and P (244 ± 68 versus 73 ± 10 nmol/l, p = 0.023) were present in CC versus NC from as early as ET + 7. In the CC group, patients with ongoing pregnancies (CC-OG) as compared with miscarriages (CC-MC) had significantly higher E2 and P from ET + 7, predicting ongoing pregnancy in receiver operator characteristics analysis.

Comparison of intravaginal progesterone gel and intramuscular 17-α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate in luteal phase support

The main objective of this study was to compare the pregnancy rates of intramuscular (IM) 17-α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17-HPC) and intravaginal (IV) progesterone gel administration in in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) cycles. The IM 17-HPC and IV progesterone groups included 632 (66.4%) and 320 (33.6%) women undergoing the first cycles of IVF-ET treatment, respectively. Multivariate analyses annotated for all potential confounders showed that the use of IV progesterone retained a predictive value for the total β-human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) positivity and clinical pregnancy rates [adjusted odds ratio (OR), 1.97; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.28–3.03; P=0.002; and OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.07–2.60; P=0.03, respectively]. However, biochemical and on-going pregnancy rates did not differ significantly between the groups (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.00–3.41; P=0.05; and OR, 1.43, 95% CI, 0.89–2.30; P=0.14, respectively). Luteal phase support (LPS) with IV progesterone gel in comparison with IM 17-HPC appears to be associated with higher clinical pregnancy rates in IVF-ET cycles. However, this benefit is clinically irrelevant in terms of on-going pregnancy outcomes.

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.

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.

WITHDRAWN: Luteal phase support in assisted reproduction cycles

BACKGROUND

The aspiration of the granulosa cells that surround the oocyte and the use of gonadotropin releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) during assisted reproduction technology (ART) treatment can interfere with the production, during the luteal phase, of progesterone, which is necessary for successful implantation of the embryo. Providing hormonal supplementation during the luteal phase with either progesterone itself, or human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), which stimulates progesterone production, may improve implantation and, thus, pregnancy rates.

OBJECTIVES

To determine (1) if luteal phase support after assisted reproduction increases the pregnancy rate, (2) the optimal hormone for luteal phase support, i.e. hCG, progesterone, or a combination of both, and (3) the optimal route of progesterone administration.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders & Subfertility Group trials register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1971 to Dec 2003), EMBASE (1985 to Dec 2003). We handsearched reference lists of relevant articles were scanned, and abstract books from scientific meetings up to December 2003.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials of luteal phase support after ART treatment, comparing hCG or progesterone with placebo or no treatment, comparing progesterone with hCG, progesterone plus hCG, or progesterone plus estrogen, or comparing different routes of progesterone administration. Quasi-randomized trials were excluded from the main analyses, but included in a secondary analysis for each comparison.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For each comparison, data on live birth, ongoing and clinical pregnancy per embryo or gamete transfer procedure, miscarriage per clinical pregnancy, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) per transfer, and multiple pregnancy per clinical pregnancy were extracted into 2 x 2 tables and subgrouped by use of GnRHa in the ovarian stimulation regimen. The odds ratio (OR) and risk difference (RD) were calculated.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-nine studies were included in the review. Luteal phase support with hCG provided significant benefit, compared to placebo or no treatment, in terms of increased ongoing pregnancy rates (odds ratio (OR) 2.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.32 to 4.29) and decreased miscarriage rates (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.50), but only when GnRHa was used. The odds of OHSS increased 20-fold when hCG was used in cycles with GnRHa. Progesterone use resulted in a small but significant increase in pregnancy rates (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.79) when trials with and without GnRHa were grouped together, but no effect on the miscarriage rate was observed. No significant difference was found between progesterone and hCG or between progesterone and progesterone plus hCG or estrogen in terms of pregnancy or miscarriage rates, but the odds of OHSS were more than 2-fold higher with treatments involving hCG than with progesterone alone(OR 3.06, 95% CI 1.59 to 5.86). Comparing routes of progesterone administration, reductions in clinical pregnancy rate with the oral route, compared to the intramuscular or vaginal routes, did not reach statistical significance, but there was evidence of benefit of the intramuscular over the vaginal route for the outcomes of ongoing pregnancy and live birth. No significant difference in pregnancy rate was observed between vaginal progesterone gel and other types of vaginal progesterone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Luteal phase support with hCG or progesterone after assisted reproduction results in an increased pregnancy rate. hCG does not provide better results than progesterone, and is associated with a greater risk of OHSS when used with GnRHa. The optimal route of progesterone administration has not yet been established.

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and tolerability of two different types of vaginal progesterone (P), Crinone 8% gel (Fleet Laboratories Ltd., Watford, United Kingdom) and Utrogestan capsules (Laboratories Besins International, Paris, France), used for luteal support after in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles.

DESIGN

Cohort study.

SETTING

In Vitro Fertilization Polyclinic, Zagreb, Croatia.

PATIENTS

A total of 285 women aged < or =37 years undergoing IVF-embryo transfer treatment.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were treated with either Crinone 8% vaginal P gel (90 mg) administered daily, or Utrogestan vaginal capsules (2 x 100 mg) administered three times daily. Progesterone was administered from the day of oocyte retrieval (day 0) to menses or, in a case of pregnancy, until week 12.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Clinical pregnancy rate. The tolerability and acceptability of both preparations were determined by a questionnaire given to patients.

RESULTS

The similar rates of clinical pregnancies (33.1% vs. 30.9%) [corrected] were obtained by using either Crinone 8% vaginal P gel or Utrogestan vaginal capsules. Overall tolerability and acceptability were significantly better in the Crinone group than in the Utrogestan group.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of the two vaginal P formulations was nearly the same, but the tolerability and acceptability of Crinone 8% gel were superior, in the opinion of patients.

Comparison between two forms of vaginally administered progesterone for luteal phase support in assisted reproduction cycles

The use of progesterone for luteal phase support has been demonstrated to be beneficial in assisted reproduction cycles using gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHa). Two micronized progesterone preparations are available for vaginal administration: capsules and gel. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of these two forms for luteal phase support in assisted reproduction cycles. A total of 244 couples undergoing IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles were included in the study and were randomly allocated (sealed envelopes) into two groups: group 1 (122) received vaginal capsules of 200 mg of micronized progesterone (Utrogestan), 3 times daily, and group 2 (122) received micronized progesterone in gel (Crinone 8%), once daily. Both groups received progesterone for 13 days beginning day 1 after oocyte retrieval, continuing until the pregnancy test was performed and until 12 weeks of pregnancy. Groups were compared by clinical data and assisted reproduction results and had similar ages and causes of infertility. Although the pregnancy rate was higher for those receiving progesterone gel than capsules (44.26 and 36.06% respectively), this difference was not statistically significant. The study showed that vaginal progesterone gel and capsules used for luteal phase support in assisted reproduction cycles with long protocol GnRHa result in similar pregnancy rates.

Progesterone supplementation to prevent recurrent miscarriage and to reduce implantation failure in assisted reproduction cycles

Implantation failure has been questioned for many cases of recurrent miscarriage and unsuccessful assisted reproduction. The exact cause of implantation failure is not known, but luteal phase defect is encountered in many of these cases. Consequently, women with recurrent miscarriages have been treated with progesterone supplementation with various degrees of success, and a recent meta-analysis has shown trends for improved live birth rates in those women. Progesterone probably acts as an immunological suppressant blocking T-helper (Th)1 activity and inducing release of Th2 cytokines. Numerous studies have confirmed that ovarian stimulation used in assisted reproduction is associated with luteal phase insufficiency, even when gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists are used. In those patients, advanced endometrial histological maturity and a decrease in the concentration of cytoplasmic progesterone receptors are observed. Progesterone supplementation results in a trend towards improved ongoing and clinical pregnancy rates, except in patients treated with human menopausal gonadotrophin-only regimens, in whom ongoing pregnancy rates increase significantly. More randomized controlled trials are needed to increase the power of the currently available meta-analyses to further evaluate progesterone supplementation in both conditions.

A randomized comparison of side effects and patient convenience between Cyclogest suppositories and Endometrin tablets used for luteal phase support in IVF treatment

OBJECTIVE

This study compared side effects and patient convenience of vaginal progesterone suppositories (Cyclogest) and vaginal progesterone tablets (Endometrin) used for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization/embryo transfer (IVF/ET) cycles using pituitary downregulation.

STUDY DESIGN

One hundred and thirty-two infertile patients were randomized on the day of ET by a computer-generated randomization list in sealed envelopes to receive either Cyclogest 400mg or Endometrin 100mg twice daily for 14 days. On days 6 and 16 after ET, they rated side effects and patient convenience into four grades: none, mild, moderate and severe by completing a questionnaire.

RESULTS

No significant differences in perineal irritation were found on days 6 and 16 after ET between the two groups, although there was a trend of fewer patients with perineal irritation in the Endometrin group. Significantly more patients in the Endometrin group had difficulty of administration on day 6 after ET. There were no differences in the hormonal profile on day 6 after ET and IVF outcomes between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

There was no difference in perineal irritation after the use of Cyclogest suppositories or Endometrin tablets for luteal phase support although more patients found administration of Endometrin tablets difficult.

Evidence of improving quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in subfertility

BACKGROUND

The quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in subfertility and their suitability for inclusion in meta-analyses have been assessed in the past and found to be insufficient. Our aim was to assess whether this quality has improved over time, particularly since the publication of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, and to assess what proportion of trials could be included in the meta-analyses of pregnancy outcomes such as those included in Cochrane Reviews.

METHODS

A selection of subfertility trials published in 1990, 1996 and 2002 was collected from the Cochrane Menstrual Disorder and Subfertility Group (MDSG) database. Only trials published in English as full journal articles, claiming to be randomized and reporting on pregnancy outcomes, were included.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-four trials met our inclusion criteria. Twenty-four (15%) were found not to be randomized, despite claims, and only 10 trials (6%) provided adequate details on the methods of randomization and allocation concealment. Of these, only three had sufficient details extractable to allow for an intention-to-treat analysis of the outcome 'live birth'.

CONCLUSIONS

Although an improvement in some subfertility-specific issues was observed, the quality of reporting of RCTs still needs to improve to make them suitable for inclusion in meta-analyses such as those in the Cochrane Library.

Luteal phase support in assisted reproductive technology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to discuss luteal support in assisted reproduction and to provide an evidence-based overview of the current options available.

RECENT FINDINGS

The luteal phase has been found to be defective in virtually all of the stimulation protocols used for in-vitro fertilization. Common mechanisms such as supraphysiological levels of estradiol, decreased output of luteinizing hormone, inhibition of the corpus luteum and asynchronization of estradiol and progesterone may be involved in insufficient function of the corpus luteum in assisted reproductive technology.

SUMMARY

Gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist undoubtedly provides benefits in stimulated cycles, however it also has adverse effects, inhibition of the corpus luteum together with supraphysiological hormonal profiles finally leading to luteal phase defects. Luteal phase support with human chorionic gonadotropin or progesterone after assisted reproduction results in increased pregnancy rates. The role of luteal phase support in these cycles has also been recently elucidated. Use of human chorionic gonadotropin for luteal phase support is associated with a marked increase in the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, therefore progesterone is the preferred choice. Data on the benefits of estrogen supplementation are conflicting. Among the routes of progesterone administration, reductions in pregnancy rates are noted on oral administration. In spite of a lack of statistical significance, the intramuscular route seems to be more beneficial than the vaginal route when considering rates of ongoing pregnancy and live birth. Further clarification is needed on the ideal dose, the optimal route and the duration of progesterone administration in assisted reproduction.

Efficacy and tolerability of vaginal progesterone capsules (Utrogest™ 200) compared with progesterone gel (Crinone™ 8%) for luteal phase support during assisted reproduction

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate the comparative efficacy and tolerability of capsules containing 200 mg of P (Utrogest 200) or Crinone 8% gel for luteal phase and early pregnancy support during assisted reproduction techniques (ART).

DESIGN

Prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled, open, parallel-group Phase III trial.

SETTING

Seventeen German IVF centers.

PATIENT(S)

Four hundred thirty women who underwent their first IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycle were randomized after successful transfer of two or three embryos from July 1999 through September 2001.

INTERVENTION(S)

Patients vaginally applied capsules containing 200 mg of P (Utrogest 200) three times per day or containing Crinone 8% gel twice per day. Therapy was started in the evening of the ET day and continued up to 10 weeks in pregnant women. If the pregnancy test proved to be negative, application was stopped.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Ongoing pregnancy rate at the end of the study (12th week of gestation). Secondary outcomes were rate of implantation and abortion, number and reasons of withdrawals, as well as adverse events, assessment of tolerability, and acceptance.

RESULT(S)

There were no relevant differences in demographic and other characteristics between the two groups. Ongoing pregnancy rates were 25.2% in the Utrogest 200 group and 22.2% in the Crinone 8% group when patients were analyzed who normally completed the trial. In the Utrogest 200 vs. the Crinone 8% group, the implantation rate (14.7% vs. 11.9%) and abortion rate (18.2% vs. 19.1%) were not statistically different. The rate of withdrawals at the individual visits also did not differ between treatment groups. Tolerability of both drugs was good, and very few study drug-related adverse events were observed in both groups.

CONCLUSION(S)

The luteal phase support in ART cycles with Utrogest 200 capsules (three times per day) or Crinone 8% gel (two times per day) by the vaginal route resulted in similar outcomes with respect to implantation, ongoing pregnancy, and abortion rates. The two recommended regimens of P supplementation in ART proved to be equivalent and safe.

Luteal phase support in assisted reproduction cycles

BACKGROUND

The aspiration of the granulosa cells that surround the oocyte and the use of gonadotropin releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) during assisted reproduction technology (ART) treatment can interfere with the production, during the luteal phase, of progesterone, which is necessary for successful implantation of the embryo. Providing hormonal supplementation during the luteal phase with either progesterone itself, or human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), which stimulates progesterone production, may improve implantation and, thus, pregnancy rates.

OBJECTIVES

To determine (1) if luteal phase support after assisted reproduction increases the pregnancy rate, (2) the optimal hormone for luteal phase support, i.e. hCG, progesterone, or a combination of both, and (3) the optimal route of progesterone administration.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders & Subfertility Group trials register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1971 to Dec 2003), EMBASE (1985 to Dec 2003). We handsearched reference lists of relevant articles were scanned, and abstract books from scientific meetings up to December 2003.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials of luteal phase support after ART treatment, comparing hCG or progesterone with placebo or no treatment, comparing progesterone with hCG, progesterone plus hCG, or progesterone plus estrogen, or comparing different routes of progesterone administration. Quasi-randomized trials were excluded from the main analyses, but included in a secondary analysis for each comparison.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For each comparison, data on live birth, ongoing and clinical pregnancy per embryo or gamete transfer procedure, miscarriage per clinical pregnancy, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) per transfer, and multiple pregnancy per clinical pregnancy were extracted into 2 x 2 tables and subgrouped by use of GnRHa in the ovarian stimulation regimen. The odds ratio (OR) and risk difference (RD) were calculated.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-nine studies were included in the review. Luteal phase support with hCG provided significant benefit, compared to placebo or no treatment, in terms of increased ongoing pregnancy rates (odds ratio (OR) 2.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.32 to 4.29) and decreased miscarriage rates (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.50), but only when GnRHa was used. The odds of OHSS increased 20-fold when hCG was used in cycles with GnRHa. Progesterone use resulted in a small but significant increase in pregnancy rates (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.79) when trials with and without GnRHa were grouped together, but no effect on the miscarriage rate was observed. No significant difference was found between progesterone and hCG or between progesterone and progesterone plus hCG or estrogen in terms of pregnancy or miscarriage rates, but the odds of OHSS were more than 2-fold higher with treatments involving hCG than with progesterone alone(OR 3.06, 95% CI 1.59 to 5.86). Comparing routes of progesterone administration, reductions in clinical pregnancy rate with the oral route, compared to the intramuscular or vaginal routes, did not reach statistical significance, but there was evidence of benefit of the intramuscular over the vaginal route for the outcomes of ongoing pregnancy and live birth. No significant difference in pregnancy rate was observed between vaginal progesterone gel and other types of vaginal progesterone.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Luteal phase support with hCG or progesterone after assisted reproduction results in an increased pregnancy rate. hCG does not provide better results than progesterone, and is associated with a greater risk of OHSS when used with GnRHa. The optimal route of progesterone administration has not yet been established.

A randomised comparison of side effects and patient inconvenience of two vaginal progesterone formulations used for luteal support in in vitro fertilisation cycles

OBJECTIVE

To compare side effects and patient inconvenience of two vaginal progesterone (P) formulations for luteal support in in vitro fertilisation cycles.

STUDY DESIGN

Sixty infertile patients at risk of developing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome were randomised to receive either Cyclogest vaginal suppositories 400mg twice daily or Crinone 8% vaginal gel once daily for 14 days as the luteal support. On Day 6 and Day 16 after embryo transfer, they rated side effects and patient inconvenience into four grades: none, mild, moderate and severe by completing a questionnaire.

RESULTS

Perineal irritation was reported by about 20% of patients in each group. Significantly more patients using Cyclogest suppositories graded inconvenience of administration, leaking out and interference with coitus as moderate or severe.

CONCLUSION

There was no difference in perineal irritation after Cyclogest suppositories or Crinone 8% gel although significantly more patients found inconvenience of administration, leaking out and interference with coitus after Cyclogest.

Preparation of cycles for cryopreservation transfers using estradiol patches and Crinone 8% vaginal gel is effective and does not need any monitoring

Supernumary pronucleated stage oocytes (PN) can be cryopreserved and later transferred in spontaneous, stimulated or artificial cycles. In this study, we re-evaluated 342 artificial cycles with a transdermal estradiol release system (Estraderm TTS 100) in combination with a vaginal progesterone delivery system (Crinone 8%). Endometrial thickness and serum estradiol on day 14 were correlated with clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates. Endometrial thickness between 7 and 15 mm did not relate to significantly different pregnancy rates. The estradiol serum level did not predict success. In conclusion, this method of endometrial preparation is comfortable for patients and monitoring is unnecessary.