Luteal phase support with estradiol and progesterone versus progesterone alone in GnRH antagonist ICSI cycles: a randomized controlled study

Comparison of luteal support protocols in fresh IVF/ICSI cycles: a network meta-analysis

Despite the proven superiority of various luteal phase support protocols (LPS) over placebo in view of improved pregnancy rates in fresh cycles of IVF (in vitro fertilization) and ICSI (intracytoplasmic sperm injection) cycles, there is ongoing controversy over specific LPS protocol selection, dosage, and duration. The aim of the present study was to identify the optimal LPS under six core aspects of ART success, clinical pregnancy, live birth as primary outcomes and biochemical pregnancy, miscarriage, multiple pregnancy, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) events as secondary outcomes. Twelve databases, namely Embase (OVID), MEDLINE (R) (OVID), GlobalHealth (Archive), GlobalHealth, Health and Psychosocial Instruments, Maternity & Infant Care Database (MIDIRS), APA PsycTests, ClinicalTrials.gov, HMIC Health Management Information Consortium, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Scopus and two prospective registers, MedRxiv, Research Square were searched from inception to Aug.1st, 2023, (PROSPERO Registration: CRD42022358986). Only Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) were included. Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) model was employed for outcome analysis, presenting fixed effects, odds ratios (ORs) with 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). Vaginal Progesterone (VP) was considered the reference LPS given its' clinical relevance. Seventy-six RCTs, comparing 22 interventions, and including 26,536 participants were included in the present NMA. Overall CiNeMa risk of bias was deemed moderate, and network inconsistency per outcome was deemed low (Multiple pregnancy χ2: 0.11, OHSS χ2: 0.26), moderate (Clinical Pregnancy: χ2: 7.02, Live birth χ2: 10.95, Biochemical pregnancy: χ2: 6.60, Miscarriage: χ2: 11.305). Combinatorial regimens, with subcutaneous GnRH-a (SCGnRH-a) on a vaginal progesterone base and oral oestrogen (OE) appeared to overall improve clinical pregnancy events; VP + OE + SCGnRH-a [OR 1.57 (95% CrI 1.11 to 2.22)], VP + SCGnRH-a [OR 1.28 (95% CrI 1.05 to 1.55)] as well as live pregnancy events, VP + OE + SCGnRH-a [OR 8.81 (95% CrI 2.35 to 39.1)], VP + SCGnRH-a [OR 1.76 (95% CrI 1.45 to 2.15)]. Equally, the progesterone free LPS, intramuscular human chorionic gonadotrophin, [OR 9.67 (95% CrI 2.34, 73.2)] was also found to increase live birth events, however was also associated with an increased probability of ovarian hyperstimulation, [OR 1.64 (95% CrI 0.75, 3.71)]. The combination of intramuscular and vaginal progesterone was associated with higher multiple pregnancy events, [OR 7.09 (95% CrI 2.49, 31.)]. Of all LPS protocols, VP + SC GnRH-a was found to significantly reduce miscarriage events, OR 0.54 (95% CrI 0.37 to 0.80). Subgroup analysis according to ovarian stimulation (OS) protocol revealed that the optimal LPS across both long and short OS, taking into account increase in live birth and reduction in miscarriage as well as OHSS events, was VP + SCGnRH-a, with an OR 2.89 [95% CrI 1.08, 2.96] and OR 2.84 [95% CrI 1.35, 6.26] respectively. Overall, NMA data suggest that combinatorial treatments, with the addition of SCGnRH-a on a VP base result in improved clinical pregnancy and live birth events in both GnRH-agonist and antagonist ovarian stimulation protocols.

Freeze-all policy versus luteal phase support with low dose of human chorionic gonadotrophin for high-responder patients undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection on pregnancy outcomes: a retrospective cohort observational study

Background

The literature has always controversies on the use of freeze-all policy in high-responder women performing intracytoplasmic sperm injection. In this article, we discuss the benefits of freeze-all policy on the incidence of pregnancy outcomes and the complications.

The main body of abstract

Freeze-all policy is applied to the intracytoplasmic sperm injection program by freezing of all embryos and delaying embryo transfer to another subsequent ovarian cycle, to decrease the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, especially in high-responder women. Unfortunately, freeze-all policy is correlated with an increase in the economic costs and more ICSI laboratory effort. Delayed embryo transfer (ET) is correlated with more anxiety among the patients. An alternative strategy is to perform fresh embryo transfer with more intensive luteal phase support to compensate for the negative effect of the GnRH agonist on the endometrial receptivity and luteal phase support.

Short conclusion

The freeze-all policy had better pregnancy rates with less incidence of moderate to severe hyperstimulation syndrome compared with original fresh embryo transfer in high-responder women performing intracytoplasmic sperm injection.

Estrogen in Luteal Phase Support: Effects on IVF-ICSI Antagonist Protocol Pregnancy Results

Aim: This study aimed to investigate the effect of luteal phase support (LPS) with estradiol in addition to progesterone on pregnancy outcomes in patients who underwent ovulation induction with GnRH antagonist protocol in in vitro fertilization- intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF-ICSI). Materials and Methods: This retrospective study was carried out at reproductive medicine center of Necmettin Erbakan University Meram Medical Faculty. The study enrolled 128 patients undergoing ICSI on an antagonist protocol for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Study group administered 7.8 mg transdermal estradiol (E2) daily in addition to progesterone for LPS (n=64). Control group administered only progesterone for LPS (n=64). All women received 200 mg progesterone 3x1 intravaginal daily and 50 mg progesterone intramuscular injection per two days for LPS. Blood samples were drawn 12 days after embryo transfer for β-hCG. If the result is negative, treatment was discontinued, if positive, estradiol was discontinued and progesterone support was continued until the 10th week of gestation. Pregnancy outcomes were the main endpoint. Results: There was no difference between groups in terms of biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, abortus and ongoing pregnancy rates. Conclusion: In our study, the use of estrogen for luteal phase support in GnRH antagonist protocol did not show any difference on pregnancy outcomes.

Luteal phase support for women trying to conceive by intrauterine insemination or sexual intercourse

BACKGROUND

Ovulation induction may impact endometrial receptivity due to insufficient progesterone secretion. Low progesterone is associated with poor pregnancy outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of luteal phase support (LPS) in infertile women trying to conceive by intrauterine insemination or by sexual intercourse.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS, trial registries for ongoing trials, and reference lists of articles (from inception to 25 August 2021).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of LPS using progestogen, human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist supplementation in IUI or natural cycle.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were live birth rate/ongoing pregnancy rate (LBR/OPR) and miscarriage.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 RCTs (5111 participants). Most studies were at unclear or high risk of bias. We graded the certainty of evidence as very low to low. The main limitations of the evidence were poor reporting and imprecision. 1. Progesterone supplement versus placebo or no treatment  We are uncertain if vaginal progesterone increases LBR/OPR (risk ratio (RR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.48; 7 RCTs; 1792 participants; low-certainty evidence) or decreases miscarriage per pregnancy compared to placebo or no treatment (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.25; 5 RCTs; 261 participants). There were no data on LBR or miscarriage with oral stimulation. We are uncertain if progesterone increases LBR/OPR in women with gonadotropin stimulation (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.92; 4 RCTs; 1054 participants; low-certainty evidence) and oral stimulation (clomiphene citrate or letrozole) (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.64; 2 RCTs; 485 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study reported on OPR in women with gonadotropin plus oral stimulation; the evidence from this study was uncertain (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.42; 1 RCT; 253 participants; low-certainty evidence). Given the low certainty of the evidence, it is unclear if progesterone reduces miscarriage per clinical pregnancy in any stimulation protocol (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.91; 2 RCTs; 102 participants, with gonadotropin; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50; 2 RCTs; 123 participants, with gonadotropin plus oral stimulation; and RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.14; 2 RCTs; 119 participants, with oral stimulation). Low-certainty evidence suggests that progesterone in all types of ovarian stimulation may increase clinical pregnancy compared to placebo (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.74; 7 RCTs; 1437 participants, with gonadotropin; RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.90; 4 RCTs; 733 participants, with gonadotropin plus oral stimulation (clomiphene citrate or letrozole); and RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.98; 6 RCTs; 1073 participants, with oral stimulation). 2. Progesterone supplementation regimen  We are uncertain if there is any difference between 300 mg and 600 mg of vaginal progesterone for OPR and multiple pregnancy (RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.09; 1 RCT; 200 participants; very low-certainty evidence; and RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.43; 1 RCT; 200 participants, very low-certainty evidence, respectively). No other outcomes were reported for this comparison. There were three different comparisons between progesterone regimens. For OPR, the evidence is very uncertain for intramuscular (IM) versus vaginal progesterone (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.02; 1 RCT; 225 participants; very low-certainty evidence); we are uncertain if there is any difference between oral and vaginal progesterone (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.22; 1 RCT; 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or between subcutaneous and vaginal progesterone (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.05; 1 RCT; 246 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if IM or oral progesterone reduces miscarriage per clinical pregnancy compared to vaginal progesterone (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.32; 1 RCT; 81 participants and RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.09; 1 RCT; 41 participants, respectively). Clinical pregnancy and multiple pregnancy were reported for all comparisons; the evidence for these outcomes was very uncertain. Only one RCT reported adverse effects. We are uncertain if IM route increases the risk of adverse effects when compared with the vaginal route (RR 9.25, 95% CI 2.21 to 38.78; 1 RCT; 225 participants; very low-certainty evidence). 3. GnRH agonist versus placebo or no treatment  No trials reported live birth. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GnRH agonist in ongoing pregnancy (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.74; 1 RCT; 291 participants, very low-certainty evidence), miscarriage per clinical pregnancy (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.10; 2 RCTs; 79 participants, very low-certainty evidence) and clinical pregnancy (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.47; 2 RCTs; 340 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and multiple pregnancy (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.70; 2 RCTs; 126 participants). 4. GnRH agonist versus vaginal progesterone  The evidence for the effect of GnRH agonist injection on clinical pregnancy is very uncertain (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.95; 1 RCT; 242 participants). 5. HCG injection versus no treatment  The evidence for the effect of hCG injection on clinical pregnancy (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.13; 1 RCT; 130 participants) and multiple pregnancy rates (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.22 to 4.92; 1 RCT; 130 participants) is very uncertain. 6. Luteal support in natural cycle No study evaluated the effect of LPS in natural cycle. We could not perform sensitivity analyses, as there were no studies at low risk of selection bias and not at high risk in other domains.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain if vaginal progesterone supplementation during luteal phase is associated with a higher live birth/ongoing pregnancy rate. Vaginal progesterone may increase clinical pregnancy rate; however, its effect on miscarriage rate and multiple pregnancy rate is uncertain. We are uncertain if IM progesterone improves ongoing pregnancy rates or decreases miscarriage rate when compared to vaginal progesterone. Regarding the other reported comparisons, neither oral progesterone nor any other medication appears to be associated with an improvement in pregnancy outcomes (very low-certainty evidence).

Luteal phase support for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection fresh cycles: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Various luteal phase supports (LPSs) have been proven to increase the pregnancy rate in fresh cycles of in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection; however, there is still significant debate regarding the optimal use of LPS.

METHODS

A systematic review with the use of a network meta-analysis was performed via electronic searching of Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar (up to January 2021) to compare the effectiveness and safety of various LPSs, as well as to evaluate the effects of different initiations of LPSs on pregnancy outcomes. The primary outcomes included live birth and ongoing pregnancy, with the results presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Eighty-nine randomized controlled trials with 29,625 women comparing 14 interventions or placebo/no LPS treatments were included in the meta-analyses. No significant differences were found in terms of the pregnancy outcomes when LPS was started within 48 h after oocyte retrieval versus a delayed initiation between 48 h and 96 h after oocyte retrieval. The addition of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists to progesterone vaginal pessaries showed a significant benefit in terms of live birth (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.78). Only human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) was found to be more efficacious than the placebo/no LPS treatment in terms of live birth (OR 15.43, 95% CI 2.03 to 117.12, low evidence). Any active LPSs (except for rectal or subcutaneous progesterone) was significantly more efficacious than the placebo/no LPS treatment in terms of ongoing pregnancy, with ORs ranging between 1.77 (95% CI 1.08 to 2.90) for the vaginal progesterone pessary and 2.14 (1.23 to 3.70) for the intramuscular progesterone treatment. Among the comparisons of efficacy and tolerability between the active treatments, the differences were small and very uncertain.

CONCLUSION

Delays in progesterone supplementation until 96 h after oocyte retrieval does not affect pregnancy outcomes. The safety of GnRH agonists during the luteal phase needs to be evaluated in future studies before the applications of these agonists in clinical practice. With comparable efficacy and acceptability, there may be several viable clinical options for LPS.

Luteal Support with very Low Daily Dose of Human Chorionic Gonadotropin after Fresh Embryo Transfer as an Alternative to Cycle Segmentation for High Responders Patients Undergoing Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Agonist-Triggered IVF

The segmentation of the in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle, consisting of the freezing of all embryos and the postponement of embryo transfer (ET), has become popular in recent years, with the main purpose of preventing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) in patients with high response to controlled ovarian stimulation (COS). Indeed cycle segmentation (CS), especially when coupled to a GnRH-agonist trigger, was shown to reduce the incidence of OHSS in high-risk patients. However, CS increases the economic costs and the work amount for IVF laboratories. An alternative strategy is to perform a fresh ET in association with intensive luteal phase pharmacological support, able to overcome the negative effects of the GnRH-agonist trigger on the luteal phase and on endometrial receptivity. In order to compare these two strategies, we performed a retrospective, real-life cohort study including 240 non-polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCO) women with expected high responsiveness to COS (AMH >2.5 ng/mL), who received either fresh ET plus 100 IU daily human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) as luteal support (FRESH group, n = 133), or cycle segmentation with freezing of all embryos and postponed ET (CS group, n = 107). The primary outcomes were: implantation rate (IR), live birth rate (LBR) after the first ET, and incidence of OHSS. Overall, significantly higher IR and LBR were observed in the CS group than in the FRESH group (42.9% vs. 27.8%, p < 0.05 and 32.7% vs. 19.5%, p < 0.05, respectively); the superiority of CS strategy was particularly evident when 16-19 oocytes were retrieved (LBR 42.2% vs. 9.5%, p = 0.01). Mild OHSS appeared with the same incidence in the two groups, whereas moderate and severe OHSS forms were observed only in the FRESH group (1.5% and 0.8%, respectively). In conclusion, in non-PCO women, high responders submitted to COS with the GnRH-antagonist protocol and GnRH-agonist trigger, CS strategy was associated with higher IR and LBR than the strategy including fresh ET followed by luteal phase support with a low daily hCG dose. CS appears to be advisable, especially when >15 oocytes are retrieved.

What is the optimal luteal support in assisted reproductive technology?

The need for luteal phase support in IVF/ICSI is well established. A large effort has been made in the attempt to identify the optimal type, start, route, dosage and duration of luteal phase support for IVF/ICSI and frozen embryo transfer. These questions are further complicated by the different types of stimulation protocols and ovulation triggers used in ART. The aim of this review is to supply a comprehensive overview of the available types of luteal phase support, and the indications for their use.A review of the literature was carried out in the effort to find the optimal luteal phase support regimen with regards to pregnancy related outcomes and short and long term safety.The results demonstrate that vaginal, intramuscular, subcutaneous and rectal progesterone are equally effective as luteal phase support in IVF/ICSI. GnRH agonists and oral dydrogesterone are new and promising treatment modalities but more research is needed. hCG and estradiol are not recommended for luteal phase support. More research is needed to establish the most optimal luteal phase support in frozen embryo transfer cycles, but progesterone has been shown to improve live birth rate in some studies. Luteal phase support should be commenced between the evening of the day of oocyte retrieval, and day three after oocyte retrieval and it should be continued at least until the day of positive pregnancy test.So, in conclusion still more large and well-designed RCT's are needed to establish the most optimal luteal phase support in each stimulation protocol, and especially in frozen embryo transfer.

A 10-year follow-up on the practice of luteal phase support using worldwide web-based surveys

BACKGROUND

It has been demonstrated that luteal phase support (LPS) is crucial in filling the gap between the disappearance of exogenously administered hCG for ovulation triggering and the initiation of secretion of endogenous hCG from the implanting conceptus. LPS has a pivotal role of in establishing and maintaining in vitro fertilization (IVF) pregnancies. Over the last decade, a plethora of studies bringing new information on many aspects of LPS have been published. Due to lack of consent between researchers and a dearth of robust evidence-based guidelines, we wanted to make the leap from the bench to the bedside, what are the common LPS practices in fresh IVF cycles compared to current evidence and guidelines? How has expert opinion changed over 10 years in light of recent literature?

METHODS

Over a decade (2009-2019), we conducted 4 web-based surveys on a large IVF-specialist website on common LPS practices and controversies. The self-report, multiple-choice surveys quantified results by annual IVF cycles.

RESULTS

On average, 303 IVF units responded to each survey, representing, on average, 231,000 annual IVF cycles. Most respondents in 2019 initiated LPS on the day of, or the day after egg collection (48.7 % and 36.3 %, respectively). In 2018, 72 % of respondents administered LPS for 8-10 gestational weeks, while in 2019, 65 % continued LPS until 10-12 weeks. Vaginal progesterone is the predominant delivery route; its utilization rose from 64 % of cycles in 2009 to 74.1 % in 2019. Oral P use has remained negligible; a slight increase to 2.9 % in 2019 likely reflects dydrogesterone's introduction into practice. E2 and GnRH agonists are rarely used for LPS, as is hCG alone, limited by its associated risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS).

CONCLUSIONS

Our Assisted reproductive technology (ART)-community survey series gave us insights into physician views on using progesterone for LPS. Despite extensive research and numerous publications, evidence quality and recommendation levels are surprisingly low for most topics. Clinical guidelines use mostly low-quality evidence. There is no single accepted LPS protocol. Our study highlights the gaps between science and practice and the need for further LPS research, with an emphasis on treatment individualization.

Is there any correlation between Estradiol supplementation, as luteal phase support, and clinical pregnancy in ART cycles? A cross-sectional study

Background

Endometrial receptivity is one of the important factors in assisted reproductive technology (ART) success. In the luteal phase of an ART cycle, serum estradiol (E2) and progesterone are often placed in low levels. Supporting the luteal phase with progesterone is a usual method.

Objective

To evaluate the effects of E2 supplementation plus progesterone on the luteal phase support in the antagonist protocol who have undergone intracytoplasmic sperm injection-embryo transfer cycles.

Materials and Methods

In this cross-sectional study, 200 patients with antagonist stimulation protocol, who had undergone intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment, were divided into two groups based on the use of E2 supplementation. In both groups, 400 mg progesterone suppositories (CyclogestⓇ), twice a day/vaginally, was administered starting from the day of oocyte collection until the fetal heart activity. However, in the E2 group, in addition to progesterone, 4 mg tablet of E2 was received daily. Beta hCG was checked 14 days after the embryo transfer, and the clinical pregnancy rate was the main endpoint.

Results

The patients' characteristics were matched, and insignificant differences were observed, except for endometrial thickness. The clinical outcomes showed the rate of pregnancy was higher in the E2 group compared to the control group; nonetheless, statistically, there was no noticeable difference.

Conclusion

E2 supplementation had no beneficial effect in the luteal phase support of IVF cycles. Nevertheless, more studies are required to confirm the supportive role of E2 supplementation for embryo implantation and to improve the outcomes in ART cycles.

Combined use of oestradiol and progesterone to support luteal phase in antagonist intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles of normoresponder women: a case-control study

We evaluated the effect of combined use of oral oestrogen (E2) and vaginal progesterone (P) to support luteal phase in antagonist intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles. We analysed data from 176 patients who underwent ICSI cycles with antagonist protocol. P 90 mg vaginal gel once a day and micronised E2 of 4 mg/day, were started from the day of oocyte pick up and continued to the 12th day of embryo transfer. Group 1 (n = 79) patients received E2 + P for luteal phase support. In group 2 (n = 97) patients, only P 90 mg vaginal gel was used for luteal phase support. There were no significant differences between group 1 and group 2 patients in terms of clinical pregnancy rates (PRs) (26.58% vs. 20.62%, p = .352), early pregnancy loss rates (6.33% vs. 6.19%, p = .969), incidence of luteal vaginal bleeding (8.86% vs. 8.25%, p = .885) and implantation rates (22.8% vs. 16.9%, p = .298). In conclusion, our study showed no beneficial effect of addition of E2 to luteal phase support on clinical PR in antagonist IVF cycles.Impact statementWhat is already known on this subject? Luteal phase deficiency is defined as a disruption in progesterone and oestrogen production after ovulation. It is clear that, luteal phase supplementation to improve the outcomes in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycles is mandatory. As an iatrogenic complication of assisted reproductive technique, decreased luteal oestrogen and progesterone levels lead to decreased pregnancy rates (PRs) and implantation rates.What the results of this study add? In this study, we aimed to present the role of luteal phase oestrogen administration in GnRH antagonist cycles. A total of 176 cases received progesterone vaginal gel form for luteal phase support. Study group received 4 mg oral oestradiol hemihydrate in addition to progesterone. Compared to previous studies, our study consisted of larger number of patients and we used oestradiol through oral route. We found out that luteal oestradiol support did not improve the clinical PR.What the implications are of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Our study showed no beneficial effect of addition of oestradiol to luteal phase support on clinical PR in antagonist IVF cycles.

A comparison of the effects of three luteal phase support protocols with estrogen on in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer outcomes in patients on a GnRH antagonist protocol

Objective:

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of three different luteal phase support protocols with estrogen on the pregnancy rates and luteal phase hormone profiles of patients undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) cycles. A secondary objective was to evaluate which ovarian reserve markers correlated with pregnancy rates.

Methods:

This retrospective observational study was carried out at a private tertiary reproductive medicine teaching and research center. The study enrolled 104 patients undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) on an antagonist protocol for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH). The women were divided into three groups based on the route of administration of estrogen (E2) for luteal phase support: oral (Primogyna); transdermal patches (Estradott); or transdermal gel (Oestrogel Pump). The administration of estrogen provided the equivalent to 4 mg of estradiol daily. All women received 600mg of vaginal progesterone (P) per day (Utrogestan) for luteal phase support. Blood samples were drawn on the day of hCG administration and on the day of beta hCG testing to measure E2 and P levels. Clinical pregnancy rate (PR) was the main endpoint.

Results:

The patients included in the three groups were comparable. No significant differences were found in implantation rates, clinical PR, miscarriage rates, multiple-pregnancy rates, E2 or P levels on the day of beta hCG measurement. Concerning ovarian reserve markers, significant correlations between testing positive for clinical pregnancy and AMH (r = 0.66, p<0.0001) and E2 levels on beta hCG measurement day (r = 0.77; p<.0001) were observed.

Conclusions:

No significant differences were seen in the pregnancy rates of patients submitted to IVF-ET cycles with GnRH antagonists given oral, transdermal patches, or transdermal gel E2 during the luteal phase. A correlation was found between clinical pregnancy rate and AMH and E2 levels on beta hCG testing day.

Estradiol use in the luteal phase and its effects on pregnancy rates in IVF cycles with GnRH antagonist: a systematic review

For all the steps of in vitro fertilization to occur successfully, factors such as the quality of retrieved oocytes and endometrial receptivity to the embryo must be ensured. Current studies have shown that endometrial receptivity can be optimized using dedicated exogenous progesterone for luteal phase support in assisted reproduction cycles. But it has not yet been established the benefits of additional use of estradiol in this support. Analyzing pituitary suppression protocols that employ GnRH antagonists, this review will address literature publications between the years 2000-2016, shedding light on this issue to answer questions about the benefits of supplementation.