Comparison of the Efficacy of Two Vaginal Progesterone Formulations, Crinone 8% Gel and Utrogestan Capsules, Used for Luteal Support in Blastocyst Stage Embryo Transfers

Comparing the efficacy of vaginal micronized progesterone gel and capsule for prevention of preterm birth in singleton pregnancies with short cervical length at midtrimester: an indirect comparison meta-analysis

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of vaginal progesterone in preventing preterm birth in women with a singleton gestation and short cervical length and to determine which of the two formulations, micronized progesterone vaginal capsule versus vaginal gel containing micronized progesterone, is more effective for preventing preterm birth. Data sources: A systematic search was performed in the following databases: EMBASE, PubMed (MEDLINE), The Cochrane Library, and the Clinical Trials Registry (clinicaltrials.gov). Study eligibility criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective and retrospective observational studies were included. We searched for progesterone administration to prevent preterm birth in asymptomatic women with a shortened cervix (<25 mm) measured by ultrasound in the second trimester of singleton pregnancy. Study appraisal and synthesis methods: Assessments of the risk of bias of RCTs were performed by applying the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool; non-randomized control trials were evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The primary outcome was preterm birth ≤33 weeks of gestation. Pooled relative risks (RR) and 95% CI's were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. Heterogeneity of treatment effect was assessed with the I² statistic. We pooled results of the primary outcome for individual studies using a random-effect model. We then performed a network meta-analysis to pool indirect comparisons between the two formulations (gel vs capsule). This analysis was performed using the network meta-analysis package within the R environment. Results: Five studies met the inclusion criteria (4 RCTs, one cohort study) including 1,048 women. The meta-analysis demonstrated that vaginal micronized progesterone significantly reduces preterm birth risk, Risk Ratio = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48-0.82; p = 0.0006; with no heterogeneity between the studies: I ² = 0%. In the network meta-analysis, no significant difference was demonstrated (OR = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.43-1.69) between the effect of the two formulations of vaginal micronized progesterone (vaginal gel versus vaginal capsules) on the risk of PTB. Conclusion: Vaginal progesterone is associated with a decreased risk of premature birth in women with a shortened cervix in the second trimester of pregnancy. No differences were found between vaginal micronized progesterone in gel or capsule formulations. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, identifier CRD42020165198.

The addition of dydrogesterone improves the outcomes of pregnant women with low progesterone levels when receiving vaginal progesterone alone as luteal support in HRT-FET cycles

Purpose

Vaginal progesterone (VP) alone has been used as luteal support (LS) in HRT-FET cycles without measuring serum progesterone concentrations (SPC) because it can achieve adequate intrauterine progesterone levels. However, several reports showed that the co-administration of progestin produced better outcomes than VP alone. We tried to address this discrepancy, focusing on SPC.

Methods

VP was given to 180 women undergoing HRT-FET. We measured SPC when pregnancy was diagnosed on day 14 of LS. We compared assisted reproductive technology outcomes between VP alone versus VP + dydrogesterone (D).

Results

When using VP alone, average SPC in the miscarriage cases (9.6 ng/mL) were significantly lower compared with the ongoing pregnancy (OP) cases (14.7 ng/mL). The cut-off value for progesterone, 10.7 ng/mL, was a good predictor for the subsequent course of the pregnancy. Of 76 women receiving D ± VP from the start of LS and achieving a pregnancy, the numbers of OP were 44 (84.6%) in SPC ≥ 10.7 ng/mL and 20 (83.3%) in SPC ≤ 10.7 ng/mL with no significant difference.

Conclusion

VP alone resulted in lower SPC in some pregnant women in HRT-FET cycles and exhibited a lower OP rate. The co-administration of D improved an OP rate of low progesterone cases to the level comparable with non-low progesterone cases.

Factors associated with extremely high progesterone concentrations on the day of HCG administration

OBJECTIVE

Progesterone elevation on the day of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) administration remains one of the most controversial topics in reproductive endocrinology. Factors associated with these increases have not been fully determined. The purpose of our study is to investigate factors associated with extreme progesterone elevation on the day of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) administration.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective observational, single-center cohort study recruited 2000 fresh in vitro fertilization (IVF) and/or intracytoplasmic sperm injection(ICSI)-embryo transfer cycles from January 2000 to December 2014 in our institution.

RESULTS

When cycles were divided into those with progesterone <1.94 ng/mL (n = 1791) and ≧1.94 ng/mL (n = 209) on the day of hCG administration, five factors were positively associated with highly elevated progesterone concentration: protocol (GnRH agonist versus antagonist; odds ratio [OR = 2.786]), number of dominant follicles (OR = 1.098), total dose of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) used (OR = 1.023), elevated luteinizing hormone (LH) (OR = 1.085) and estradiol (E2; OR = 1.001) concentrations on the day of hCG administration (p < 0.001 each). After omitting the protocol effect, the remaining factors showed limited contributions to highly elevated progesterone (ORs = 0.95-1.2).

CONCLUSIONS

The factor showing the greatest association with extreme progesterone elevation was use of the GnRH agonist protocol.

Growth hormone supplementation may improve the pregnancy rate and endometrial receptivity among women aged more than 40 years undergoing in vitro fertilization

Background

Growth hormone (GH) supplements have been shown to improve pregnancy and live-birth rates, suggesting that GH has a beneficial effect on oocyte quality. However, the effects of GH on implantation and receptivity remain unknown. This study evaluated the efficacy of GH in women aged more than 40 years participating in assisted reproductive technology (ART) programs.

Methods

Cycles of in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection-embryo transfer (IVF/ICSI-ET) in women aged more than 40 years (range, 40–43 years) between January 2009 and March 2014 at a university-based reproductive center were reviewed. Women were divided into two groups, those with and without GH co-stimulation. ART outcomes were evaluated.

Results

Supplement of GH significantly lowered cycle cancellation rate by increasing the per cycle rates of harvesting at least one oocyte and transferring at least one embryo (80.2% vs. 69.4%). GH increased the per cycle clinical pregnancy (15.9% vs. 6.8%) and favorable ultrasonic endometrial pattern (60.9% vs. 39.3%) rates. GH also increased the per transfer clinical pregnancy (19.9% vs. 9.9%) and implantation (11.2% vs. 5.2%) rates and the rate of a favorable ultrasonic endometrial pattern (65.1% vs. 45.0%).

Conclusion

GH supplementation reduces the cycle cancellation rate in women aged more than 40 years, and increases the favorable ultrasonic endometrial pattern, pregnancy, and implantation rates by its beneficial actions on embryo quality and endometrial receptivity.

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.

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.

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.

Comparison of the offspring sex ratio between cleavage stage embryo transfer and blastocyst transfer

OBJECTIVE

To compare the sex ratio of offspring born after cleavage stage embryo transfer and blastocyst transfer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study of embryo transfer (ET), we included 473 offspring from 446 deliveries during the period January 2002 to December 2007. Statistical analysis was performed on the sex ratio of offspring resulting from day 3 cleavage stage embryo transfer and from sequential blastocyst culture transfer.

RESULTS

In total, 446 patient deliveries were included in this analysis. There were 251 singleton pregnancies, 109 twin pregnancies, and four triplet pregnancies. The total number of offspring was 473, of which 118 resulted from day 3 ETs, and 355 resulted from blastocyst ETs. At our center, the influence on the sex ratio of cleavage stage ET and blastocyst-stage ET showed a bias towards males in both cases. The overall female to male ratio for offspring resulting from day 3 ETs was not significantly higher than the same ratio for offspring resulting from blastocyst ETs (p = 0.24; odds ratio, 0.762). The female to male ratio for either singleton births or multiple deliveries was also not significantly different between day 3 ETs and blastocyst ETs.

CONCLUSION

The sex ratio was influenced by cleavage stage ET and blastocyst-stage ET. In both cases, there was a bias towards males. In addition, when blastocyst ET was compared with day 3 ET, there was no further increase in the percentage of male offspring.