17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate versus intravaginal progesterone in IVF-embryo transfer cycles: a prospective randomized study

The association between the type of progesterone supplementation and miscarriage risk in women who have had a positive pregnancy test following embryo transfer: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to identify if switching from intramuscular (IM) to vaginal progesterone compared to staying on IM progesterone after a positive pregnancy test following embryo transfer (ET) is associated with miscarriage risk.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed in a private university-affiliated fertility clinic and included women aged 18-50 years with a positive pregnancy test following ET. The two groups studied were: women who stayed on IM progesterone following a positive pregnancy test and those who switched to vaginal progesterone after a positive test. The main outcome measured was risk of miscarriage < 24 weeks gestation as a proportion of non-biochemical pregnancies.

RESULTS

1988 women were included in the analysis. Among the baseline characteristics, the presence of prior miscarriages as well as prior failed ETs, and frozen cycles (vs fresh) as type of transfer were associated with IM progesterone use (p values ≤ 0.01). As per miscarriage risk < 24 weeks, 22.4% (274/1221) of patients in the IM progesterone group experienced a miscarriage compared with 20.7% (159/767) in the vaginal progesterone group (OR 0.90; 95% CI 0.73-1.13). A multivariable logistic regression model revealed an adjusted OR (aOR) of 0.97 (95% CI 0.77-1.22).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that switching from IM to vaginal progesterone after a positive pregnancy test following an ET is not associated with miscarriage risk. Considering that IM progesterone imposes substantial discomfort, this study offers reassurance and some flexibility in treatment protocols. Further prospective studies are necessary to corroborate the results of this study.

"All-In-One" Genetic Tool Assessing Endometrial Receptivity for Personalized Screening of Female Sex Steroid Hormones

Endometrium is the uterine lining that undergoes hundreds of cycles of proliferation, differentiation, and desquamation throughout a woman's reproductive life. Recently, much attention is paid to the appropriate endometrial functioning, as decreased endometrial receptivity is stated to be one of the concerns heavily influencing successes of embryo implantation rates and the efficacy of in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. In order to acquire and maintain the desired endometrial receptivity during IVF cycles, luteal phase support by various progestagens or other hormonal combinations is generally recommended. However, today, the selection of the specific hormonal therapy during IVF seems to be empirical, mainly due to a lack of appropriate tools for personalized approach. Here, we designed the genetic tool for patient-specific optimization of hormonal supplementation schemes required for the maintenance of endometrial receptivity during luteal phase. We optimized and characterized in vitro endometrial stromal cell (ESC) decidualization model as the adequate physiological reflection of endometrial sensitivity to steroid hormones. Based on the whole transcriptome RNA sequencing and the corresponding bioinformatics, we proposed that activation of the decidual prolactin (PRL) promoter containing ancient transposons MER20 and MER39 may reflect functioning of the core decidual regulatory network. Furthermore, we cloned the sequence of decidual PRL promoter containing MER20 and part of MER39 into the expression vector to estimate the effectiveness of ESC decidual response and verified sensitivity of the designed system. We additionally confirmed specificity of the generated tool using human diploid fibroblasts and adipose-derived human mesenchymal stem cells. Finally, we demonstrated the possibility to apply our tool for personalized hormone screening by comparing the effects of natural progesterone and three synthetic analogs (medroxyprogesterone 17-acetate, 17α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate, dydrogesterone) on decidualization of six ESC lines obtained from patients planning to undergo the IVF procedure. To sum up, we developed the "all-in-one" genetic tool based on the MER20/MER39 expression cassette that provides the ability to predict the most appropriate hormonal cocktail for endometrial receptivity maintenance specifically and safely for the patient, and thus to define the personal treatment strategy prior to the IVF procedure.

Vaginal versus intramuscular progesterone for luteal phase support in assisted reproductive techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

We aimed to compare the efficacy of vaginal progesterone versus intramuscular progesterone (IMP) for luteal phase support in assisted reproductive techniques (ART). A comprehensive electronic search of four electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and ISI Web of Science) was performed from inception till August 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We included studies performed different ART with the use of vaginal progesterone versus IMP for luteal phase support. Our primary outcome was clinical pregnancy rate. Our secondary outcomes were ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage, live birth rates, and satisfaction in both groups. 15 RCTs met our inclusion criteria with a total of 5656 patients. Our analysis indicated no significant differences between vaginal progesterone and IMP regarding clinical and ongoing pregnancies (RR = 0.90, 95% CI [0.80, 1.00], p = .06), (RR = 0.90, 95% CI [0.76, 1.06], p = .21), respectively. No significant differences were found between both routes of progesterone in miscarriage (p = .98) and live birth (p = .99). Subgroup analysis between fresh and frozen embryo transfer cycles in above outcomes showed no difference between progesterone routes. Vaginal progesterone was significantly associated with more satisfaction compared to IMP (p < .00001). In conclusion, vaginal progesterone can be used an alternative method for luteal phase support instead of IMP in 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) 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.

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.

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of 17alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17-HPC) given before embryo transfer on the pregnancy outcome of IVF-embryo transfer (ET) cycles.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled study.

SETTING

A university-based hospital IVF unit.

PATIENT(S)

One hundred twenty-five consecutive patients undergoing IVF-ET were randomly assigned into treatment and control groups.

INTERVENTION(S)

In the treatment group, 63 patients received 17-HPC (250 mg, i.m.), 1 day before ET. The control group consisted of 62 patients who did not receive any injections.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Pregnancy and multiple-pregnancy rates.

RESULT(S)

The two groups were similar with respect to the age of patients, total dose of FSH, number of oocytes and embryos obtained, and number and quality of embryos transferred. There was no significant difference in the pregnancy rate (34.9% vs. 38.7%) or in the rate of multiple gestation (15.9% vs. 9.7%) between cases and controls, respectively.

CONCLUSION(S)

The use of 17-HPC before ET does not appear to affect the outcome of IVF-ET.

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.

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.

Successful pregnancy and delivery after delaying the initiation of progesterone supplementation in a postmenopausal donor oocyte recipient

Progesterone luteal support has become a standard procedure during IVF cycles. Donor egg cycle women without inherent ovarian function require complete hormone replacement, in contrast with women undergoing IVF in which luteal support is used to supplement endogenous progesterone production. Progesterone support is clearly beneficial, although the timing of its initiation can affect overall outcomes. This paper describes a case in which a postmenopausal woman attending for oocyte donation did not receive her first progesterone injection at the correct time. Treatment with progesterone began when she arrived for the transfer of the donor embryos. The two embryos were maintained in culture and one was transferred on day 6 when the delayed progesterone administration had induced a secretory transformation in her endometrium. A single gestation sac was recorded 8 weeks later, and a healthy baby was subsequently born. On the morning of day 6, delayed progesterone supplementation had induced the secretory endometrial transformation typical of the second phase of the menstrual cycle.