Luteal support with micronized progesterone following in-vitro fertilization using a down-regulation protocol with gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist: a comparative study between vaginal and oral administration

Oral micronized progesterone versus vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in fresh embryo transfer cycles: a multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority trial

STUDY QUESTION

Does oral micronized progesterone result in a non-inferior ongoing pregnancy rate compared to vaginal progesterone gel as luteal phase support (LPS) in fresh embryo transfer cycles?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The ongoing pregnancy rate in the group administered oral micronized progesterone 400 mg per day was non-inferior to that in the group administered vaginal progesterone gel 90 mg per day.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

LPS is an integrated component of fresh IVF, for which an optimal treatment regimen is still lacking. The high cost and administration route of the commonly used vaginal progesterone make it less acceptable than oral micronized progesterone; however, the efficacy of oral micronized progesterone is unclear owing to concerns regarding its low bioavailability after the hepatic first pass.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This non-inferiority randomized trial was conducted in eight academic fertility centers in China from November 2018 to November 2019. The follow-up was completed in April 2021.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

A total of 1310 infertile women who underwent their first or second IVF cycles were enrolled. On the day of hCG administration, the patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups for LPS: oral micronized progesterone 400 mg/day (n = 430), oral micronized progesterone 600 mg/day (n = 440) or vaginal progesterone 90 mg/day (n = 440). LPS was started on the day of oocyte retrieval and continued till 11-12 weeks of gestation. The primary outcome was the rate of ongoing pregnancy.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

In the intention-to-treat analysis, the rate of ongoing pregnancy in the oral micronized progesterone 400 mg/day group was non-inferior to that of the vaginal progesterone gel group [35.3% versus 38.0%, absolute difference (AD): -2.6%; 95% CI: -9.0% to 3.8%, P-value for non-inferiority test: 0.010]. There was insufficient evidence to support the non-inferiority in the rate of ongoing pregnancy between the oral micronized progesterone 600 mg/day group and the vaginal progesterone gel group (31.6% versus 38.0%, AD: -6.4%; 95% CI: -12.6% to -0.1%, P-value for non-inferiority test: 0.130). In addition, we did not observe a statistically significant difference in the rate of live births between the groups.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The primary outcome of our trial was the ongoing pregnancy rate; however, the live birth rate may be of greater clinical interest. Although the results did not show a difference in the rate of live births, they should be confirmed by further trials with larger sample sizes. In addition, in this study, final oocyte maturation was triggered by hCG, and the findings may not be extrapolatable to cycles with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist triggers.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Oral micronized progesterone 400 mg/day may be an alternative to vaginal progesterone gel in patients reluctant to accept the vaginal route of administration. However, whether a higher dose of oral micronized progesterone is associated with a poorer pregnancy rate or a higher rate of preterm delivery warrants further investigation.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This research was supported by a grant from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (82071718). None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

This trial was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (http://www.chictr.org.cn/) with the number ChiCTR1800015958.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

May 2018.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

November 2018.

Progesterone: The Key Factor of the Beginning of Life

Progesterone is the ovarian steroid produced by the granulosa cells of follicles after the LH peak at mid-cycle. Its role is to sustain embryo endometrial implantation and ongoing pregnancy. Other biological effects of progesterone may exert a protective function in supporting pregnancy up to birth. Luteal phase support (LPS) with progesterone is the standard of care for assisted reproductive technology. Progesterone vaginal administration is currently the most widely used treatment for LPS. Physicians and patients have been reluctant to change an administration route that has proven to be effective. However, some questions remain open, namely the need for LPS in fresh and frozen embryo transfer, the route of administration, the optimal duration of LPS, dosage, and the benefit of combination therapies. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the uterine and extra-uterine effects of progesterone that may play a role in embryo implantation and pregnancy, and to discuss the advantages of the use of progesterone for LPS in the context of Good Medical Practice.

A review of conventional and sustained-release formulations of oral natural micronized progesterone in obstetric indications

Background

Exogenous progesterone is a treatment option for obstetric indications associated with reduced progesterone activity. Oral natural micronized progesterone (NMP) is effective, although it requires multiple daily doses and may cause adverse events due to its active metabolites. A sustained-release formulation of NMP (NMP-SR) has been developed to overcome the limitations of conventional oral NMP.

Methods

This narrative review examines the available evidence for oral NMP and NMP-SR in several obstetric indications of interest.

Results

Literature searches identified 17 studies of oral NMP (luteal phase support during assisted reproduction, prevention of threatened miscarriage, prevention of preterm delivery), and clinical studies supporting use of NMP-SR (luteal phase support during intrauterine insemination, maintenance of high-risk pregnancy). Oral NMP was effective for luteal phase support during in vitro fertilization and intrauterine insemination, prevention of threatened miscarriage, and prevention of preterm delivery. NMP-SR was comparable to dydrogesterone for luteal phase support during intrauterine insemination and effectively maintained high-risk pregnancies. Oral NMP-SR was well tolerated.

Conclusions

By releasing progesterone gradually and circumventing first-pass metabolism, NMP-SR elicits the desired therapeutic effect with benefits over conventional oral NMP in terms of bioavailability, once-daily dosing and improved tolerability. Oral NMP-SR appears to be a valuable option for treating obstetric conditions associated with insufficient progesterone exposure.

Intramuscular progesterone optimizes live birth from programmed frozen embryo transfer: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether vaginal progesterone for programmed endometrial preparation is noninferior to intramuscular progesterone in terms of live birth rates from frozen embryo transfer (FET).

DESIGN

Three-armed, randomized, controlled noninferiority trial.

SETTING

Multicenter fertility clinic.

PATIENT(S)

A total of 1,346 volunteer subjects planning vitrified-warmed transfer of high-quality nonbiopsied blastocysts were screened, of whom 1,125 subjects were ultimately enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment.

INTERVENTION(S)

The subjects were randomly assigned to receive, in preparation for FET, 50 mg daily of intramuscular progesterone (control group), 200 mg twice daily of vaginal micronized progesterone plus 50 mg of intramuscular progesterone every third day (combination treatment), or 200 mg twice daily of vaginal micronized progesterone.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

The primary outcome was live birth rate per vitrified-warmed embryo transfer. The secondary outcomes were a positive serum human chorionic gonadotropin test 2 weeks after FET, biochemical pregnancy loss, clinical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy loss, total pregnancy loss, serum luteal progesterone concentration 2 weeks after FET, and patient's experience and attitudes regarding the route of progesterone administration, on the basis of a survey administered to the subjects between FET and pregnancy test.

RESULT(S)

A total of 1,060 FETs were completed. The live birth rate was significantly lower in women receiving only vaginal progesterone (27%) than in women receiving intramuscular progesterone (44%) or combination treatment (46%). Fifty percent of pregnancies in women receiving only vaginal progesterone ended in miscarriage.

CONCLUSION(S)

The live birth rate after vaginal-only progesterone replacement was significantly reduced, due primarily to an increased rate of miscarriage. Vaginal progesterone supplemented with intramuscular progesterone every third day was noninferior to daily intramuscular progesterone, offering an effective alternative regimen with fewer injections.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02254577.

Vaginal Progesterone Supplementation in the Management of Preterm Labor: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective in this study was to evaluate the effects of vaginal progesterone supplementation for the prolongation of the latency period in preterm labor. The secondary objectives were to evaluate gestational age at delivery, rates of preterm birth less than 34 and 37 weeks, obstetric outcomes, maternal compliance with medication use, and side effects.

METHODS

A randomized controlled, unblinded trial was performed. Ninety women with preterm labor occurring at 24 to 34 weeks were either randomized to a vaginal progesterone group (44 women) receiving tocolytic and antenatal corticosteroids treatment combined with vaginal micronized progesterone (400 mg everyday) or to the no-progesterone group (46 women) receiving tocolytic and antenatal corticosteroids treatment only.

RESULTS

Latency periods were more prolonged in the vaginal progesterone group than in the no-progesterone group (32.8 ± 18.7 vs. 25.8 ± 22.7 days, p = 0.045). Gestational age at delivery in the vaginal progesterone group was also higher than in the no-progesterone group (37 vs. 35 weeks, p = 0.027). There were significant reduction rates of preterm birth less than 34 weeks (13.6% vs. 39.1%, p = 0.012), low birth weight (29.5% vs. 50%, p = 0.048), neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (13.6% vs. 37%, p = 0.021), and neonatal intensive care unit admission (6.8% vs. 28.3%, p = 0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

Combined treatment with vaginal progesterone 400 mg could prolong the latency period in preterm labor when compared with no progesterone.

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.

Progesterone for the Prevention of Preterm Birth - an Update of Evidence-Based Indications

The prevention and treatment of preterm birth remains one of the biggest challenges in obstetrics. Worldwide, 11% of all children are born prematurely with far-reaching consequences for the children concerned, their families and the health system. Experimental studies suggest that progesterone inhibits uterine contractions, stabilises the cervix and has immunomodulatory effects. Recent years have seen the publication of numerous clinical trials using progestogens for the prevention of preterm birth. As a result of different inclusion criteria and the use of different progestogens and their methods of administration, it is difficult to draw comparisons between these studies. A critical evaluation of the available studies was therefore carried out on the basis of a search of the literature (1956 to 09/2018). Taking into account the most recent randomised, controlled studies, the following evidence-based recommendations emerge: In asymptomatic women with singleton pregnancies and a short cervical length on ultrasound of ≤ 25 mm before 24 weeks of gestation (WG), daily administration of vaginal progesterone (200 mg capsule or 90 mg gel) up until 36 + 6 WG leads to a significant reduction in the preterm birth rate and an improvement in neonatal outcome. The latest data also suggest positive effects of treatment with progesterone in cases of twin pregnancies with a short cervical length on ultrasound of ≤ 25 mm before 24 WG. The study data for the administration of progesterone in women with singleton pregnancies with a previous preterm birth have become much more heterogeneous, however. It is not possible to make a general recommendation for this indication at present, and decisions must therefore be made on a case-by-case basis. Even if progesterone use is considered to be safe in terms of possible long-term consequences, exposure should be avoided where it is not indicated. Careful patient selection is crucial for the success of treatment.

Evaluation of progestogen supplementation for luteal phase support in fresh in vitro fertilization cycles

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of progestogen supplementation in improving clinical pregnancy rates in women undergoing fresh IVF cycles and to compare different routes, start times, durations, and estrogen coadministration regimen.

DESIGN

Comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.

SETTING

University.

PATIENT(S)

Women undergoing fresh IVF cycles who did and did not receive progestogen supplementation.

INTERVENTION(S)

Summary odds ratios (ORs) were calculated by binomial logistic regression.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Clinical pregnancy rates.

RESULT(S)

Eighty-two articles (26,726 women) were included. Clinical pregnancy rates were increased by IM (OR = 4.57), vaginal (OR = 3.34), SC (OR = 3.36), or oral (OR = 2.57) progestogen supplementation versus no treatment. The greatest benefit was observed when progestogens were supplemented IM versus vaginally (OR = 1.37). The optimal time to commence administration was between oocyte retrieval and ET (OR = 1.31), with oocyte retrieval +1 day being most beneficial. Coadministration of estrogen had no benefit (OR = 1.33), whether progestogens were coadministered vaginally or IM. Clinical pregnancy rates were equivalent when progestogen supplementation was ceased after ≤3 weeks or continued for up to 12 weeks (OR = 1.06).

CONCLUSION(S)

This broad-ranging meta-analysis highlights the need to reevaluate current clinical practice. The use of progestogens in fresh IVF cycles is substantially beneficial to clinical pregnancy. Critically, the use of IM progestogens should not be dismissed, as it yielded the greatest clinical pregnancy rates. Pregnancy success was impacted by initiation of therapy, with 1 day after oocyte retrieval being optimal. There is little evidence to support coadministration of estrogen or prolonging progestogen treatment beyond 3 weeks.

Dydrogesterone: pharmacological profile and mechanism of action as luteal phase support in assisted reproduction

The pharmacological and physiological profiles of progestogens used for luteal phase support during assisted reproductive technology are likely to be important in guiding clinical choice towards the most appropriate treatment option. Various micronized progesterone formulations with differing pharmacological profiles have been investigated for several purposes. Dydrogesterone, a stereoisomer of progesterone, is available in an oral form with high oral bioavailability; it has been used to treat a variety of conditions related to progesterone deficiency since the 1960s and has recently been approved for luteal phase support as part of an assisted reproductive technology treatment. The primary objective of this review is to critically analyse the clinical implications of the pharmacological and physiological properties of dydrogesterone for its uses in luteal phase support and in early pregnancy.

Effectiveness of high-dose transvaginal progesterone supplementation for women who are undergoing a frozen-thawed embryo transfer

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness of high-dose progesterone supplementation for women who are undergoing a frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET).

METHODS

Among the 2010 FET cycles that were included in the present study, 1188 were 1200 mg/d of vaginal progesterone, while 822 were 900 mg/d. The dose of progesterone that was used was decided by the treatment period and additional progesterone supplementation was used when the serum progesterone levels were <9 ng/mL on luteal day 5.

RESULTS

The clinical pregnancy rate was higher in the 1200 mg group than in the 900 mg group. The mean serum progesterone level on luteal day 5 in the 1200 mg and 900 mg groups was 12.6 ng/mL and 13.4 ng/mL, respectively. The rate of additional progesterone supplementation was higher in the 1200 mg group. A logistic regression analysis identified a younger age (≤37 years) and the use of 1200 mg progesterone as independent predictive factors for the clinical pregnancy outcome. The analysis of the infant outcomes revealed no significant difference in the distribution of birth ages and weights.

CONCLUSION

High-dose transvaginal progesterone of 1200 mg/d as luteal support contributed to good pregnancy outcomes.

Vitrified blastocyst transfer cycles with the use of only vaginal progesterone replacement with Endometrin have inferior ongoing pregnancy rates: results from the planned interim analysis of a three-arm randomized controlled noninferiority trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the noninferiority of vaginal P (Endometrin) compared with daily intramuscular P for replacement in programmed vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer cycles and to assess the noninferiority of vaginal P in combination with intramuscular progesterone every third day compared with daily intramuscular P.

DESIGN

Three-arm randomized controlled noninferiority study. To enable early recognition of inferiority if present, an a priori interim analysis was planned and completed once ongoing pregnancy data were available for 50% of the total enrollment goal. The results of this interim analysis are presented here.

SETTING

Assisted reproduction technology practice.

PATIENT(S)

Women undergoing transfer of nonbiopsied high quality vitrified-warmed blastocyst(s) in a programmed cycle.

INTERVENTION(S)

Vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer with mode of P replacement determined by randomization to either: (1) 50 mg daily intramuscular P only; (2) 200 mg twice daily vaginal Endometrin; or (3) 200 mg twice daily Endometrin plus 50 mg intramuscular P every 3rd day.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Live birth. The primary outcome of this interim analysis was ongoing pregnancy.

RESULT(S)

A total of 645 cycles were randomly assigned to one of the three treatment arms, received at least one dose of P replacement therapy according to this assignment and underwent vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer. These cycles were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The study team, including the statistician, were blinded to the identity of the treatment arms, which were randomly labeled "A," "B," and "C" in the dataset. Ongoing pregnancy occurred in 50%, 47%, and 31% of cycles in arms A, B, and C respectively. Although arm C had an rate of positive hCG equivalent to the other two arms, the rate of pregnancy loss for arm C was significantly higher than for either of the two arms, resulting in a more than one-third lower rate of ongoing pregnancy. There were no statistically significant differences for any outcome tested between arms A and B. Results of a per-protocol analysis were nearly identical to those of the intention-to-treat analysis. On completion of these analyses, arm C was revealed to be the vaginal P only arm.

CONCLUSION(S)

Relative to regimens inclusive of intramuscular P, vaginal-only P replacement for vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer results in decreased ongoing pregnancy, due to increased miscarriage, and should be avoided. Randomization to the vaginal-only arm was terminated with these findings. This trial is ongoing to assess the noninferiority of the vaginal plus every 3rd day intramuscular P arm compared with daily intramuscular P in terms of live birth.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NLM identifier NCT02254577.

Use of progesterone supplement therapy for prevention of preterm birth: review of literatures

Preterm birth (PTB) is one of the most common complications during pregnancy and it primarily accounts for neonatal mortality and numerous morbidities including long-term sequelae including cerebral palsy and developmental disability. The most effective treatment of PTB is prediction and prevention of its risks. Risk factors of PTB include history of PTB, short cervical length (CL), multiple pregnancies, ethnicity, smoking, uterine anomaly and history of curettage or cervical conization. Among these risk factors, history of PTB, and short CL are the most important predictive factors. Progesterone supplement therapy is one of the few proven effective methods to prevent PTB in women with history of spontaneous PTB and in women with short CL. There are 2 types of progesterone therapy currently used for prevention of PTB: weekly intramuscular injection of 17-alpha hydroxyprogesterone caproate and daily administration of natural micronized progesterone vaginal gel, vaginal suppository, or oral capsule. However, the efficacy of progesterone therapy to prevent PTB may vary depending on the administration route, form, dose of progesterone and indications for the treatment. This review aims to summarize the efficacy and safety of progesterone supplement therapy on prevention of PTB according to different indication, type, route, and dose of progesterone, based on the results of recent randomized trials and meta-analysis.

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.

Progesterone and the luteal phase: a requisite to reproduction

Progesterone production from the corpus luteum is critical for natural reproduction. Progesterone supplementation seems to be an important aspect of any assisted reproductive technology treatment. Luteal phase deficiency in natural cycles is a plausible cause of infertility and pregnancy loss, though there is no adequate diagnostic test. This article describes the normal luteal phase of the menstrual cycle, investigates the controversy surrounding luteal phase deficiency, and presents the current literature for progesterone supplementation during assisted reproductive technologies.

Assisted reproductive techniques

Assisted reproductive technologies (ART) encompass fertility treatments, which involve manipulations of both oocyte and sperm in vitro. This chapter provides a brief overview of ART, including indications for treatment, ovarian reserve testing, selection of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) protocols, laboratory techniques of ART including in vitro fertilization (IVF), and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), embryo transfer techniques, and luteal phase support. This chapter also discusses potential complications of ART, namely ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and multiple gestations, and the perinatal outcomes of ART.

The luteal phase after ovarian stimulation

Evaluation of the luteal phase after ovarian stimulation presents several difficulties. Until today, it has not been proved that in cycles stimulated with clomiphene citrate/human menopausal gonadotrophins, luteal supplementation with progesterone significantly increases implantation rate. On the contrary, it is accepted that in cycles stimulated with GnRH agonists/gonadotrophins, support of the luteal phase is essential for the achievement of pregnancy. In GnRH antagonist cycles luteal supplementation, although widely practised, is not at present supported by randomized controlled trials. Finally, it appears that the combination of gonadotrophin stimulation with human chorionic gonadotrophin results in an inadequate luteal phase with or without the use of either agonists or antagonists.

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.

Endometrin as luteal phase support in assisted reproduction

OBJECTIVE

To compare clinical pregnancy rate (PR) and live birth rate (LBR) between Endometrin monotherapy versus Endometrin and P in oil combination therapy in assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis.

SETTING

Large private practice.

PATIENT(S)

Patients undergoing autologous fresh IVF cycles, autologous frozen ET cycles, and fresh oocyte donor cycles were included for analysis.

INTERVENTION(S)

Endometrin as a single agent for luteal support, Endometrin monotherapy or Endometrin with P in oil used at least once every 3 days for luteal support, Endometrin combination therapy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Clinical PR and LBR.

RESULT(S)

A total of 1,034 ART cycles were analyzed. Endometrin monotherapy was used in 694 of 1,034 (67%) cycles and Endometrin combination therapy was used in 340 of 1,034 (33%) cycles. In all fresh cycles, clinical PR was not significantly different (IVF autologous: Endometrin monotherapy 46.9% vs. Endometrin combination therapy 55.6%; donor oocyte endometrin monotherapy 45.2% vs. Endometrin combination therapy 52.0%). Frozen ET cycles had a significantly higher clinical PR and LBR with combination therapy group compared with monotherapy (clinical PR 47.9% vs. 23.5%; LBR 37.5% vs. 17.3%).

CONCLUSION(S)

Endometrin monotherapy was sufficient for the P component of luteal support and provided high PRs for fresh cycles in both autologous and donor oocyte cycles. Clinical PR and LBR in frozen ET cycles were significantly improved with the addition of IM P to Endometrin therapy. This may reflect the fact that lesser quality embryos are transferred in frozen ET cycles, and more intense P support is required for comparable PRs.

Duration of luteal support (DOLS) with progesterone pessaries to improve the success rates in assisted conception: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Luteal support with progesterone is necessary for successful implantation of the embryo following egg collection and embryo transfer in an in-vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle. Progesterone has been used for as little as 2 weeks and for as long as 12 weeks of gestation. The optimal length of treatment is unresolved at present and it remains unclear how long to treat women receiving luteal supplementation.

Design

The trial is a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to investigate the effect of the duration of luteal support with progesterone in IVF cycles. Following 2 weeks standard treatment and a positive biochemical pregnancy test, this randomized control trial will allocate women to a supplementary 8 weeks treatment with vaginal progesterone or 8 weeks placebo. Further studies would be required to investigate whether additional supplementation with progesterone is beneficial in early pregnancy.

Discussion

Currently at the Hewitt Centre, approximately 32.5% of women have a positive biochemical pregnancy test 2 weeks after embryo transfer. It is this population that is eligible for trial entry and randomization. Once the patient has confirmed a positive urinary pregnancy test they will be invited to join the trial. Once the consent form has been completed by the patient a trial prescription sheet will be sent to pharmacy with a stated collection time. The patient can then be randomized and the drugs dispensed according to pharmacy protocol. A blood sample will then be drawn for measurement of baseline hormone levels (progesterone, estradiol, free beta-human chorionic gonadotrophin, pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A, Activin A, Inhibin A and Inhibin B). The primary outcome measure is the proportion of all randomized women that continue successfully to a viable pregnancy (at least one fetus with fetal heart rate >100 beats/minute) on transabdominal/transvaginal ultrasound at 10 weeks post embryo transfer/12 weeks gestation (that is at the end of 8 weeks supplementary trial treatment).

Trial registration

ISRCTN05696887

Pregnancy outcomes in oocyte donation recipients: vaginal gel versus intramuscular injection progesterone replacement

PURPOSE

Compare outcomes with vaginal gel versus intramuscular progesterone replacement in donor oocyte recipients.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective analysis (January 2004-December 2006) evaluated pregnancy outcomes (serum human chorionic gonadotropin, implantation, clinical pregnancy, delivery, total pregnancy loss rates) for 225 recipients of embryos from donor (aged <32 years) oocytes. Vaginal progesterone gel (Crinone® 8%; 90 mg twice daily; n = 105) or intramuscular progesterone (50 mg once daily; n = 120) was started the afternoon of oocyte retrieval and continued until a negative pregnancy test or 10 weeks' gestation.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences between groups for the five pregnancy outcomes; numerical results favored vaginal progesterone in all cases. Confidence intervals showed vaginal gel was within, or <1% from, a noninferiority limit of 10% versus intramuscular progesterone for four of five pregnancy outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Pregnancy outcomes were comparable for progesterone replacement with vaginal gel and intramuscular progesterone in an oocyte donation program.

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.

Progesterone supplementation during the luteal phase and in early pregnancy in the treatment of infertility: an educational bulletin

Exogenous progesterone supplementation is a common element of treatment regimens for infertility, particularly those relating to the assisted reproductive technologies.

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.

Progesterone for maintenance tocolytic therapy after threatened preterm labour: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Women with preterm labour that is arrested with tocolytic therapy are at increased risk of recurrent preterm labour. The efficacy of maintenance tocolytic therapy after successful arrest of preterm labour remains controversial.

AIM

The purpose of this study was to determine whether supplementation of vaginal progesterone after inhibition of preterm labour is associated with an increased latency period and a decreased recurrent of preterm labour.

METHODS

This trial was conducted in 70 women who presented with symptoms of threatened preterm labour, who after arrest of uterine activity were then randomised to progesterone therapy or no treatment. Treatment group received progesterone suppository (400 mg) daily until delivery and control group received no treatment.

RESULTS

Longer mean latency until delivery (36/11 +/- 17/9 vs 24/52 +/- 27/2) (mean + standard deviation) days; respiratory distress syndrome 4 (10.8%) vs 12 (36.4%) P = 0.021; low birthweight 10 (27%) vs 17 (51.5%) P = 0.04; and birthweight (3101.54 +/- 587.9 g vs r 2609.39 +/- 662.9 g, P = 0.002), were significantly different between the two groups. No significant differences were found between recurrent preterm labour 13 (35.1%) vs 19 (57.6%), P = 0.092; admission to intensive care unit 9 (24.3%) vs 13 (39.4%), P= 0.205 ; and neonatal sepsis 2 (5.4%) vs 6 (18.2%) P = 0.136, for the progesterone and control groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The use of vaginal progesterone suppository after successful parenteral tocolysis associated with a longer latency preceding delivery but failed to reduce the incidence of readmission for preterm labour.

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.

Oral progestogen versus intramuscular progesterone for luteal support after assisted reproductive technology treatment: a prospective randomized study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of oral progestogen, chlormadinone acetate, and intramuscular (IM) progesterone for luteal support in patients, undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment, who were treated with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa).

METHODS

This was a prospective randomized study of 40 patients with normal and high response (serum estradiol > 2,000 pg/ml) in GnRHa down-regulation. Patients were randomized to receive either oral chlormadinone acetate or IM progesterone. The outcomes of ART treatment, including pregnancy and embryo implantation rates, were analyzed.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the clinical pregnancy rates (25 vs. 20%) and in the implantation rates (12.7 vs. 9.1%) of patients who received IM progesterone and oral chlormadinone acetate. Endometrial thickness was also comparable between oral chlormadinone acetate and IM progesterone.

CONCLUSION

Oral progestogen, chlormadinone acetate showed a comparable pregnancy rate and live birth rate with IM progesterone as luteal support for the high responders. The optimal methods for luteal support may be dependent on responses to stimulation with gonadotropin, although it is not concluded that oral chlormadinone acetate is recommended as an option for luteal support in high responders.

Progesterone and the risk of preterm birth among women with a short cervix

BACKGROUND

Previous randomized trials have shown that progesterone administration in women who previously delivered prematurely reduces the risk of recurrent premature delivery. Asymptomatic women found at midgestation to have a short cervix are at greatly increased risk for spontaneous early preterm delivery, and it is unknown whether progesterone reduces this risk in such women.

METHODS

Cervical length was measured by transvaginal ultrasonography at a median of 22 weeks of gestation (range, 20 to 25) in 24,620 pregnant women seen for routine prenatal care. Cervical length was 15 mm or less in 413 of the women (1.7%), and 250 (60.5%) of these 413 women were randomly assigned to receive vaginal progesterone (200 mg each night) or placebo from 24 to 34 weeks of gestation. The primary outcome was spontaneous delivery before 34 weeks.

RESULTS

Spontaneous delivery before 34 weeks of gestation was less frequent in the progesterone group than in the placebo group (19.2% vs. 34.4%; relative risk, 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36 to 0.86). Progesterone was associated with a nonsignificant reduction in neonatal morbidity (8.1% vs. 13.8%; relative risk, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.26 to 1.25; P=0.17). There were no serious adverse events associated with the use of progesterone.

CONCLUSIONS

In women with a short cervix, treatment with progesterone reduces the rate of spontaneous early preterm delivery. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00422526 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

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.

The science behind 25 years of ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization

To allow selection of embryos for transfer after in vitro fertilization, ovarian stimulation is usually carried out with exogenous gonadotropins. To compensate for changes induced by stimulation, GnRH analog cotreatment, oral contraceptive pretreatment, late follicular phase human chorionic gonadotropin, and luteal phase progesterone supplementation are usually added. These approaches render ovarian stimulation complex and costly. The stimulation of multiple follicular development disrupts the physiology of follicular development, with consequences for the oocyte, embryo, and endometrium. In recent years, recombinant gonadotropin preparations have become available, and novel stimulation protocols with less detrimental effects have been developed. In this article, the scientific background to current approaches to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization is reviewed. After a brief discussion of the relevant aspect of ovarian physiology, the development, application, and consequences of ovarian stimulation strategies are reviewed in detail.

Greater implantation and pregnancy rates with vaginal progesterone in intracytoplasmic sperm injection but not in in vitro fertilization cycles: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of vaginal progesterone supplementation with intramuscular supplementation in assisted reproduction cycles.

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SETTING

Physiopathology of Human Reproduction Unit, Pordenone, Italy, from July 2000 to June 2004.

PATIENT(S)

Three hundred and eight-five intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) procedures (188 with vaginal gel and 197 with intramuscular progesterone) and 373 in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles (227 with vaginal and 146 with intramuscular progesterone).

INTERVENTION(S)

Progesterone luteal supplementation: vaginal gel (Crinone 8% 90 mg/day) or intramuscular (Prontogest 50 mg/day).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Implantation rates, and total and clinical pregnancy rates.

RESULT(S)

Higher rates of implantation and total and clinical pregnancies were observed in the vaginal supplemented ICSI subgroup than in the intramuscular one. This difference was observed for all transfers (13.3% vs. 8.8%, 39.8% vs. 23.3%, and 28.7% vs. 18.6%) and for ultrasound-guided transfers (17.2% vs. 9.3%, 49% vs. 27%, and 36.9% vs. 21.1%, respectively).

CONCLUSION(S)

The vaginal route of luteal supplementation may be better than the intramuscular one, yielding higher implantation rates as well as total and clinical pregnancy rates in ICSI cycles but not in classic IVF treatments.

Reproductive biology and IVF: ovarian stimulation and endometrial receptivity

The influence of ovarian stimulation on endometrium receptivity has been inadequately addressed in medical literature. Hormonal effects of ovarian stimulation on endometrial changes as compared with the natural cycle should be elucidated and correlated with the potential of the embryo to implant. It is important to distinguish between the endometrial effect of induction of ovulation in anovulatory women and those of ovarian (super)ovulation in ovulatory women. Induction of ovulation leads to in vivo conception whereas ovarian stimulation results in in vitro fertilization. The available data in the field indicate that endometrial changes have an impressive negative influence on the potential of embryonic implantation. The aim of this review is to analyse the effects of gonadotropin, GnRH-agonist and GnRH-antagonist administration on endometrial behaviour, to highlight the gaps in current knowledge and to propose areas in which research is needed.

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.

Luteal support with vaginal micronized progesterone gel in assisted reproduction

The purpose of this study was to review the rationale for vaginal progesterone treatment as luteal support in IVF, and the clinical experience with vaginal micronized progesterone gel. It was found that luteal support with exogenous progesterone significantly improves implantation and pregnancy rates after IVF. Vaginal administration offers a number of potential advantages over intramuscular injection in terms of tolerability and convenience. The clinical experience with Crinone 8%, a vaginal gel containing 90 mg micronized progesterone in a polycarbophil base, indicates that the use of this preparation is associated with pregnancy rates comparable with those achieved after intramuscular administration of progesterone. Moreover, in studies in which patient preferences have been assessed, significantly higher preferences for vaginal micronized progesterone gel have been reported, compared with intramuscular administration or vaginal suppositories. In conclusion, the vaginal micronized progesterone gel used in this study provided effective and well-tolerated luteal support in women undergoing IVF.

Evaluation of an optimal luteal phase support protocol in IVF

SUBJECT

Luteal phase support has been shown in the past to be an essential part of ovarian stimulation protocols, especially the long protocol. It could be shown that hCG is as effective as is progesterone for luteal phase support but hCG is accompanied by a higher rate of complications.

METHODS

Progesterone can be administered in several routes. The oral, intramuscular (i.m.) and vaginal routes have been chosen frequently in the past. The oral route is ineffective, since progesterone has a low oral bioavailability (<10%), and a high rate of metabolites, which may result in side effects such as somnolence etc. Intramuscular administration provides very high serum levels of progesterone and this route is effective with regard to pregnancy rates. Injection of progesterone, however, is painful and cannot be done by the patient herself. The vaginal route is also effective, progesterone can be administered by the patient herself and progesterone is delivered directly to the uterus, where high levels are achieved (first uterine pass effect).

RESULTS

Several studies could show, in the past, that the vaginal administration of progesterone is effective also with regard to the downregulation of uterine contractions. Crinone 8% Vaginal Gel is especially designed for vaginal use with a special applicator and has to be administered once daily in the morning. It adheres to the vaginal epithelium, and leakage of the gel is substantially reduced as compared to other drugs like capsules or suppositories.

CONCLUSIONS

Since progesterone is as effective as hCG for luteal phase support but provides a higher safety with regard to ovarian hyperstimulation syndromes, and vaginal progesterone is as effective as intramuscular progesterone, vaginal progesterone should be the standard choice for luteal phase support. Crinone 8% seems to be the most comfortable way of vaginal administration of progesterone for luteal phase support in IVF cycles.