Comparison of LH concentrations in the early and mid-luteal phase in IVF cycles after treatment with HMG alone or in association with the GnRH antagonist Cetrorelix

The efficacy and safety of luteal phase support with progesterone following ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to update the current evidence for the efficacy and safety of progesterone luteal phase support (LPS) following ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination treatment (OS-IUI) for unexplained or mild male infertility. Four additional studies were identified compared to the previous review in 2017. Twelve RCTs (2631 patients, 3262 cycles) met full inclusion criteria. Results from quantitative synthesis suggest that progesterone LPS after OS-IUI leads to higher live birth (RR 1.38, 95%CI [1.09, 1.74]; 7 RCTs, n=1748) and clinical pregnancy rates (RR 1.38, 95% CI [1.21, 1.59]; 11 RCTs, n=2163) than no LPS or placebo. This effect is specifically present in protocols using gonadotropins for OS-IUI (RR 1.41, 95%CI [1.17, 1.71]; 7 RCTs, n=1114), and unclear in protocols involving clomiphene citrate (RR 1.01, 95% CI [0.05, 18.94]; 2 RCTs, n=138). We found no effect of progesterone LPS on multiple pregnancy or miscarriage rates. No correlation between drug-dosage or duration of treatment and effect size was seen. Though our results suggest both benefit and safety of progesterone LPS in OS-IUI, evidence is of low to moderate quality and additional well-powered trials are still mandatory to confirm our findings and justify implementation in daily practice.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=292325, identifier CRD42021292325.

IVF and the exogenous progesterone-free luteal phase

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In a conventional IVF cycle, final oocyte maturation and ovulation is triggered with a bolus of hCG, followed by progesterone-based luteal support that spans several weeks if pregnancy is achieved. This article summarizes several approaches of the exogenous progesterone-free luteal support in IVF.

RECENT FINDINGS

Triggering ovulation with GnRH agonist may serve as an alternative to hCG, with well established advantages. In addition, the luteal phase can be individualized in order to achieve a more physiologic hormonal milieu, and a more patient friendly treatment, alleviating the burden of a lengthy exogenous progesterone therapy.

SUMMARY

GnRH agonist trigger followed by a 'freeze all' policy is undoubtedly the best approach towards the 'OHSS-free clinic'. If fresh embryo transfer is considered well tolerated after GnRH agonist trigger, rescue of the corpora lutea by LH activity supplementation is mandatory. Herein we discuss the different approaches of corpus luteum rescue.

The early luteal hormonal profile in IVF patients triggered with hCG

STUDY QUESTION

What is the early luteal phase hormonal profile in patients undergoing ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI followed by hCG trigger and a freeze-all strategy without luteal phase support?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The peak concentration of progesterone occurred 4 days after oocyte pick-up (OPU + 4), with an average 35% fall from OPU + 4 to OPU + 6, and progesterone levels before and 12 h after hCG administration predicted levels during the early luteal phase.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The luteal phase during IVF differs from that during normal cycles, particularly with respect to the serum progesterone level profile. This can cause asynchrony between the embryo and the endometrium, potentially resulting in implantation failure and poor reproductive outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This prospective study included 161 women with normal ovarian reserve receiving GnRH antagonist co-treatment during ovarian stimulation with FSH who were followed up to 6 days after OPU in a single IVF cycle.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Women aged 18-42 years undergoing IVF with ovarian stimulation using FSH were included. Ovulation was triggered with recombinant hCG 250 μg. Hormone levels were determined from blood samples taken on the day of trigger, before hCG, at 12, 24 and 36 h after hCG and at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 days after OPU. The primary endpoint was early luteal phase serum concentrations of progesterone, LH, estradiol and hCG.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

One outlier with a pre-hCG serum progesterone level of 11.42 ng/mL was excluded, so all analyses included 160 subjects. Progesterone levels began to increase 1 day after OPU, peaked 4 days after OPU (114 ng/mL), then declined from OPU + 5 onwards. Peak progesterone levels were at OPU + 4, OPU + 5 or OPU + 6 in 38.8, 29.4 and 13.8% of patients, respectively. Approximately two-thirds of patients had a fall in serum progesterone from OPU + 4 to OPU + 6. Pre-hCG progesterone levels correlated significantly with those at 24 h after hCG (r2 = 0.28; P < 0.001), which in turn correlated significantly with progesterone at OPU + 4 (r2 = 0.32; P < 0.001). LH peaked (4.4 IU/L) 12 h after hCG trigger, persisting for 24 h but was barely elevated compared with physiological levels. Serum estradiol peaked twice: at 24 h post-trigger and at OPU + 4. Highest hCG levels (130 mIU/mL) occurred at 24 h post-injection. The best correlations between the number of follicles ≥11 mm and serum progesterone level were seen at 24 and 36 h after hCG and OPU + 1.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The influence of different profiles of serum progesterone on reproductive outcomes could not be determined because a freeze-all strategy was used in all patients. In addition, data were not available to relate serum hormone level findings with endometrial histology or endometrial receptivity analysis to clearly identify the relationship between serum hormones and the window of implantation.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Detailed information about early luteal phase hormone levels could be used to optimize and individualize luteal phase support to improve reproductive outcomes.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This study was funded by My Duc Hospital, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. All authors state that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02798146; NCT03174691.

Does multifollicular development and number of intermediate follicles contribute to the effect of luteal phase support with vaginal progesterone gel in intrauterine insemination cycles?

Luteal phase deficiency as a result of multifollicular development which produces supraphysiological progesterone and estradiol levels and benefit of luteal phase support have been proven in assisted reproductive technique (ART) treatment. But, there were some controversial results in intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles whether luteal phase support (LPS) with progesterone have an impact on pregnancy outcome. To assess the efficacy of vaginal progesterone gel in the gonadotropin-induced IUI cycles, this retrospective data analysis compared the luteal phase support and control group in terms of clinical pregnancy (CPR) and live birth rates (LBR). In subgroup analysis, multifollicular and monofollicular growth were analyzed separately. In total, after exclusion criteria, 380 IUI cycles were analyzed, cycles were grouped as LPS(+) and LPS(-) with 190 and 190 cycles, respectively. CPR and LBR were comparable between groups (11.6% vs. 10.5, p = .74 and 8.9% vs. 8.4%, p = .75 respectively). Although multifollicular growth demonstrated higher pregnancy outcomes than monofollicular growth, intermediate follicles (14-16 mm) had a positive impact on pregnancy outcome in monofollicular growth like multifollicular subgroup. We found no difference in CPR and LBR according to the luteal phase vaginal progesterone gel. Nevertheless, multifollicular cycles and also monofollicular growth cycles with two and more intermediate follicles may have benefit LPS in gonadotropin-induced IUI cycles.

[Impact of luteal phase support by human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) in intrauterine inseminations]

OBJECTIVES

The objective of our study is to evaluate the impact of luteal phase support by hCG in intrauterine inseminations preceded by ovarian gonadotropin stimulation.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted at the CHU of Nice between March 1, 2016 and October 31, 2017. During this period, 300 intrauterine inseminations were included in data analysis. Ovarian stimulation was performed by gonadotropins and a GnRH antagonist was added, if needed. Following a modification of standard operative procedure in the department, patients who performed an intrauterine insemination from December 1, 2016 received luteal phase support with two injections of hCG 1500 IU, performed at three days of interval. Pregnancy and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome were the primary and secondary study endpoints, respectively.

RESULTS

Out of 300 inseminations included in the analysis, 144 were performed with luteal phase support and 156 without support. No statistically significant difference in pregnancy rate was observed between these two groups (19.4% of pregnancy in the luteal phase support group and 15.38% in the group without luteal phase support, P=0.353). No ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome occurred over the course of the study.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows a slight improvement of pregnancy rate in the group subjected to luteal phase support by hCG after intrauterine insemination, but the benefit was not significant. A randomised prospective study based on a large cohort could help to assess the effect of luteal phase support during intrauterine inseminations.

The addition of single dose GnRH agonist to luteal phase support in artificial cycle frozen embryo transfer: a randomized clinical trial

This prospective randomized clinical trial (RCT) was to evaluate the effect of single-dose gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) in artificial cycle frozen-embryo transfer (AC-FET). A total of 868 FET cycles were included and randomized into two groups: Group A (n = 434) received GnRHa 0.1 mg subcutaneous injection on day 3 after embryo transfer (ET); Group B (n = 434) did not receive GnRHa. The demographic characteristics, primary endpoint (implantation rate) and secondary endpoints (chemical pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy rate) were compared between two groups and subgroups (aged <35 years and 35-37 years). There were no significant differences in terms of the rates of implantation, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, and miscarriage between two groups. While, the subgroups analysis showed the implantation rate was significantly increased in advanced age women (35-37 years) in GnRHa group compared with control group (45.3% vs. 27.8%, p = .03). In conclusion, single dose of GnRHa (0.1 mg triptorelin acetate) supplementation 3 days after ET in AC-FET cycles did not show significant benefit on pregnancy outcomes as a whole. However, in ageing women subgroup, the implantation rate was increasing by adding up GnRHa in peri-implantation periods, and this tendency needs to be further demonstrated by RCT with larger sample size.

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.

Clinical pregnancy following GnRH agonist administration in the luteal phase of fresh or frozen assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective(s)

To study if the GnRH agonist administration in luteal phase improves clinical pregnancy rate of fresh and frozen embryo transfer. Also, this meta-analysis compares the treatment effect of luteal GnRH agonist administration between long agonist and antagonist protocols of fresh cycles, and between two types of treatment: fresh and frozen embryo transfers.

Study design

Systematic review and meta-analysis (registration number CRD42017059152)

Results

For the overall 20 studies (5497 patients), clinical pregnancy rate significantly increased in group of GnRH agonist administration compared to control group (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.14–1.34, p < 0.0001). Regarding the treatment effect of luteal GnRH agonist administration between long agonist and antagonist protocol fresh cycles, no significant difference was observed (RR = 1.28, 95% CI 0.98–1.67, p = 0.07). Also, in comparison between fresh and frozen embryo transfer, similar effect of GnRH agonist administration was found (RR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.74–1.16, p = 0.49).

Conclusion(s)

There is evidence that GnRH agonist administration in luteal phase improve clinical pregnancy rate in both fresh and frozen cycles. Within fresh cycles, no significant difference of clinical pregnancy rate is found between two protocols. In frozen cycles, the effect of GnRH agonist administration in enhancing clinical pregnancy rate is similar to fresh cycles.

Luteal oestradiol for patients with serum oestradiol levels lower than expected per oocyte

Although the efficiency of progesterone in providing luteal phase support has been established, the role of oestradiol supplementation during the luteal phase remains controversial. We evaluated pregnancy outcomes of patients who had a ratio of serum E2 levels on the hCG day to the number of oocytes retrieved (oestradiol/oocyte ratio - EOR) levels of <100 pg/ml by supporting them with additional oestradiol during the luteal phase. In total, 150 patients with an EOR < 100 pg/ml of oestradiol undergoing antagonist intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles were randomly assigned into two groups to receive either oral oestradiol (4 mg/d) plus vaginal progesterone (90 mg, 2 × 1/day) (group 1) or vaginal progesterone (90 mg, 2 × 1/d) alone (group 2). Implantation rate following transfer of a single embryo did not differ between the two groups (group 1 = 33.3%; group 2 = 34.9%; p = 0.85). Similarly, both groups gave comparable clinical pregnancy rates per embryo transfer with 31.7% in group 1 compared with 28.6% in group 2 (p = 0.69). In conclusion the study suggests that the addition of 4 mg oral E2 to progesterone does not increase the probability of pregnancy.

Analysis of two different luteal phase support regimes and evaluation of in vitro fertilization-intra cytoplasmic sperm injection outcomes

Objective:

To evaluate clinical pregnancy rates, miscarriage rates, ongoing pregnancy rates, and in vitro fertilization-intra cytoplasmic sperm injection outcomes of gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) administration compared with human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) application for luteal phase support.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 456 patients were included in the study. The patients were divided into two groups according to luteal phase support type: in group 1 (n=158), single-dose triptorelin acetate 0.1 mg was given on the sixth day after the oocyte pick-up (OPU). In group 2 (n=298), hCG 1500 IU was given on day 4, 7 and 10 after the OPU.

Results:

Both groups were homogeneous in relation with age and antral follicle count. The number of stimulation days and endometrial thickness on hCG day (mm) were found to be significantly higher in group 2 than in group 1 (p<0.001). The clinical pregnancy rate was slightly higher in the GnRHa group, but this difference was not statistically significant.

Conclusion:

Although there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups, luteal phase support with single-dose GnRHa might be as efficient as three doses of hCG. Large prospective, randomized-controlled studies are required comparing GnRHa and hCG for luteal phase support.

Daytime Variation in Serum Progesterone During the Mid-Luteal Phase in Women Undergoing In Vitro Fertilization Treatment

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether mid-luteal serum progesterone (P₄) exhibits significant fluctuations during a 12-h daytime period in women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) and to explore whether the extent of these fluctuations could impact the interpretation of luteal progesterone levels in a clinical setting.

DESIGN

Explorative pilot study.

SETTING

Public hospital-based fertility unit.

PATIENTS

Ten women undergoing IVF treatment.

INTERVENTION

Seven days after oocyte pick-up, patients underwent frequent repeated blood sampling (every 60 min for 12 h and during two of these hours, every 15 min). Serum samples were analyzed for progesterone, estradiol, and luteinizing hormone (LH).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Daytime fluctuations in s-progesterone and s-estradiol.

RESULTS

There was a significant positive correlation between median P₄ levels and the magnitude of P₄ variations-women with median P₄ < 60 nmol/l had clinically stable P₄ levels throughout the day, while patients with median P₄ > 250 nmol/l exhibited periodic P₄ peaks of several hundred nanomoles per liter. These endogenous P₄ fluctuations were observed irrespective of the type of stimulation protocol or mode of triggering of final oocyte maturation and despite the fact that LH was under the detection limit at the time of measurement. Simultaneously, large fluctuations were seen in s-estradiol.

CONCLUSION

Monitoring of early to mid-luteal P₄ levels in IVF cycles may be valuable in the planning of individualized luteal phase support in the attempt to increase reproductive outcomes. The prerequisite for luteal phase monitoring is, however, that the validity of a single measured P₄ value is reliable. We show for the first time, that a single P₄ measurement in the low progesterone patient quite accurately reflects the corpus luteum function and that the measurement can be used to detect IVF patients with a need of additional exogenous luteal P₄ administration.

Progesterone luteal support after ovulation induction and intrauterine insemination: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of progesterone (P) for luteal phase support after ovulation induction (OI) and intrauterine insemination (IUI).

DESIGN

An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENT(S)

Patients undergoing OI-IUI for infertility.

INTERVENTION(S)

Exogenous P luteal support after OI-IUI.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Live birth.

RESULT(S)

Eleven trials were identified that met inclusion criteria and constituted 2,842 patients undergoing 4,065 cycles, more than doubling the sample size from the previous meta-analysis. In patients receiving gonadotropins for OI, clinical pregnancy (relative risk [RR] 1.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21-2.02) and live birth (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.30-2.42) were more likely in P supplemented patients. These findings persisted in analysis of live birth per IUI cycle (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.24-2.04). There were no data on live birth in clomiphene citrate or clomiphene plus gonadotropin cycles. There was no benefit on clinical pregnancy with P support for patients who underwent OI with clomiphene (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52-1.41) or clomiphene plus gonadotropins (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.90-1.76).

CONCLUSION(S)

Progesterone luteal phase support is beneficial to patients undergoing ovulation induction with gonadotropins in IUI cycles. The number needed to treat is 11 patients to have one additional live birth. Progesterone support did not benefit patients undergoing ovulation induction with clomiphene citrate or clomiphene plus gonadotropins.

Luteal phase support in intrauterine insemination cycles

Intrauterine insemination (IUI) treatment aims to increase the rate of conception by increasing the chances that the maximum number of healthy sperm reach the site of fertilization. IUI with controlled ovarian stimulation is frequently used in assisted reproduction practice. Although widely used, the efficacy of luteal support in IUI remains controversial. In this article, we aimed to review what we know regarding luteal support in IUI cycles and to adjudicate about the clinical use and benefits of this treatment. Based on the study results available in the literature, it appears to be beneficial to supplement the luteal phase in gonadotropin-stimulated IUI cycles that yield more than one follicle.

Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in the 21st century: the role of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist trigger and kisspeptin

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) complicates a considerable part of stimulated in-vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles and is a potential iatrogenic cause of death in otherwise healthy women undergoing fertility treatment. The triggering factor of OHSS is the widespread use of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) to induce final oocyte maturation. The aim of this review is to summarize different approaches available, using alternative triggering protocols such as gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) or kisspeptin for final oocyte maturation.

RECENT FINDINGS

According to the latest European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology report, the incidence of OHSS ranges from 0.18 to 1.40% in European countries. However, OHSS is still subject to substantial underreporting. New triggering protocols using GnRHa have shown to be similar to the gold standard hCG-trigger with regard to the reproductive outcome, but with a significant decrease in - and almost elimination of - OHSS. Lately, promising results have been reported for the use of kisspeptin to induce final oocyte maturation. Although until now no study has been performed in an OHSS risk population, theoretically, the risk of OHSS development might be even further reduced after kisspeptin trigger.

SUMMARY

GnRHa trigger is currently the best tool we have to prevent OHSS and at the same time maintain good reproductive outcomes. Future research will explore the safety and efficacy of kisspeptin trigger.

Luteal phase support in intrauterine insemination cycles: a prospective randomized study of 300 mg versus 600 mg intravaginal progesterone tablet

Vaginal progesterone (P) has been suggested to be used for luteal phase support (LPS) in controlled ovarian stimulation (COH)-intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles, however, no concensus exists about the best P dose. Therefore, considering the fecundability rate as the primary end point, our main objective was to find the optimal dose of P in COH-IUI cycles, comparing the two groups of women, each of which comprised of 100 women either on 300 mg or 600 mg of intravaginal P tablets, in a prospective randomized study design. The mean age of the women, duration of infertility, basal and day of hCG injection hormone levels in the female and sperm parameters were similar in the two study groups. Also, duration and dose of gonadotropin given, number of follicles, endometrial thickness, the total, ongoing and multiple pregnancy rates were comparable in both groups. We, therefore, claim that 300 mg of intravaginal micronized P should be the maximum dose of LPS in IUI cycles.

Spontaneous clinical pregnancy following GNRH agonist trigger for final oocyte maturation and freeze-all approach: a case report

We herein describe a 34-year old infertile woman with polycystic ovary syndrome who was underwent follicle stimulation with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist, and a freeze-all approach, but still conceived spontaneously without any luteal phase support and without development of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. The bilateral antral follicle count of the patient was 22. A fixed GnRH antagonist protocol was used. As the number of follicles wider than 11 mm in diameter on the day of stimulation was 28, the final oocyte maturation was triggered by a GnRH agonist and a freeze-all approach was taken. Although no luteal phase support was used after trigger, the patient conceived spontaneously. In conclusion, the endogenous LH level during the luteal phase may be sufficiently high in selected cases to rescue some of the corpora lutea even when a GnRH agonist has been administered for final oocyte maturation. When a freeze-all approach is taken to avoid ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, couples should be strictly advised to refrain from sexual intercourse after oocyte retrieval.

The effect of luteal phase progesterone supplementation on natural frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles

Objective

To evaluate the effect of progesterone supplementation during the luteal phase on pregnancy outcome in natural frozen-thawed embyo transfer (FTET) cycles.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, 228 consecutive patients who underwent FTET cycles between January 2009 and September 2012 were included. One hundred forty-five patients received luteal progesterone support (P group) but 83 patients did not receive any progesterone supplementation during luteal phase (control group).

Results

There were no differences in patients' characteristics between the two groups. The two groups were similar with respect to the characteristics of previous fresh in vitro fertilization cycle in which embryos were cryopreserved including the numbers of oocytes retrieved, mature oocytes, fertilized oocytes, grade 1 or 2 embryos and frozen embryos. Also, significant differences were not observed between the P and control groups in clinical pregnancy rate, embryo implantation rate and multiple pregnancy rate. However, miscarriage rate was significantly lower in the P group and live birth rate was significantly higher in the P group than in the control group (P<0.05, P<0.05).

Conclusion

Our results suggest that luteal phase progesterone supplementation decreases miscarriage rate and improves live birth rate in natural FTET cycles.

Efficacy of luteal phase support with vaginal progesterone in intrauterine insemination: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy of luteal phase support with vaginal progesterone in women undergoing intrauterine insemination (IUI).

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing supplementation of luteal phase with vaginal progesterone among women undergoing IUI versus a control group were included. The main outcome assessed was live birth rate.

RESULTS

Five RCT met the inclusion criteria. In all 1,271 patients were included (951 IUI cycles in the progesterone group, 935 in the control group). Women treated with vaginal progesterone achieved significantly higher live birth rate (risk ratio [RR] 1.94, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.36 to 2.77,), and clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.41, 95 % CI 1.14 to 1.76) as compared with controls. In the subgroup analysis per stimulation protocol, this beneficial effect of receiving progesterone was only observed in the group stimulated with gonadotropins (RR 2.28, 95 % CI 1.49 to 3.51), compared to the group stimulated with clomiphene citrate (CC) (RR 1.30, 95 % CI 0.68 to 2.50). No differences were observed in the miscarriage and multiple pregnancy rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The supplementation of luteal phase with vaginal progesterone significantly increases live birth among women undergoing IUI when receiving gonadotropins for ovulation induction. Women receiving CC to induce ovulation do not seem to benefit from this treatment.

Luteal estradiol supplementation in gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist cycles for infertile patients in vitro fertilization

Objective

To evaluate the effect of the addition of estradiol to luteal progesterone supplementation in GnRH antagonist cycles for infertile patients undergoing IVF/ICSI.

Methods

One hundred and ten infertile patients, aged 28 to 39 years, were recruited for this prospective randomized study. They were randomly assigned to receive vaginal progesterone gel (Crinone) along with 4 mg estradiol valerate (group 1, n=55) or only Crinone (group 2, n=55) for luteal support. A GnRH antagonist multiple dose protocol using recombinant human FSH was used for controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) in all of the subjects. The COS results and pregnancy outcomes of the two groups were compared.

Results

Group 1 and 2 were comparable with respect to the patient characteristics. The COS and IVF results were also comparable between the two groups. There were no differences in the clinical pregnancy rate (PR) and multiple PR between the two groups. However, the embryo implantation rate were significantly higher in group 1 than that in group 2 (22.2% vs. 13.3%, p=0.035). The incidence of luteal vaginal bleeding (LVB) was significantly lower in group 1 (7.4% vs. 27.8%, p=0.010).

Conclusion

The addition of estradiol to luteal progesterone supplementation in GnRH antagonist cycles reduces the incidence of LVB and increases the embryo implantation rate in infertile patients undergoing IVF/ICSI.

Progesterone luteal support after ovulation induction and intrauterine insemination: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of luteal phase P support after ovulation induction IUI.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENT(S)

Undergoing ovulation induction IUI.

INTERVENTION(S)

Any form of exogenous P in ovulation induction IUI cycles.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Clinical pregnancy and live birth.

RESULT(S)

Five trials were identified that met inclusion criteria and comprised 1,298 patients undergoing 1,938 cycles. Clinical pregnancy (odds ratio [OR] 1.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15-1.98) and live birth (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.21-3.67) were more likely in P-supplemented patients. These findings persisted in analyses evaluating per IUI cycle, per patient, and first cycle only data. In subgroup analysis, patients receiving gonadotropins for ovulation induction had the most increase in clinical pregnancy with P support (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.20-2.6). Conversely, patients receiving clomiphene citrate (CC) for ovulation induction showed no difference in clinical pregnancy with P support (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.47-1.67).

CONCLUSION(S)

Progesterone luteal phase support may be of benefit to patients undergoing ovulation induction with gonadotropins in IUI cycles. Progesterone support did not benefit patients undergoing ovulation induction with CC, suggesting a potential difference in endogenous luteal phase function depending on the method of ovulation induction.

Ovarian stimulation for IVF and endometrial receptivity--the missing link

The contemporary approach to ovarian stimulation for IVF treatment results in supraphysiological concentrations of steroids during the follicular and luteal phases of the menstrual cycle. These sex steroids act directly and indirectly to mature the endometrium, influencing receptivity for implantation. Corpus luteum function is distinctly abnormal in IVF cycles, and therefore luteal support is widely used. Various reasons may underlie the defective luteal phase, including (i) ovarian hyperstimulation per se, (ii) gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogue co-treatment and (iii) the use of human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) to induce final oocyte maturation. The recent introduction of GnRH antagonist co-treatment for the prevention of a premature LH rise during the late follicular phase allows for different approaches to ovarian stimulation for IVF. However, a recent meta-analysis showed that implantation rates may be compromised by using GnRH antagonists in currently employed regimens. The development of endometrium receptive to embryo implantation is a complex process and may be altered by inappropriate exposure to sex steroids in terms of timing, duration and magnitude. New approaches to the assessment of endometrial receptivity are now required. Novel approaches to ovarian stimulation aimed at adjusted GnRH antagonist regimens and achieving a more physiological luteal phase endocrinology are now appearing in the literature and may represent an important step in the improvement of the overall health economics of IVF.

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.

The role of GnRH antagonists in assisted reproduction

The different schemes of application of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists in ovarian stimulation protocols for assisted reproduction are reviewed. Starting from the initial schemes of single and/or multiple doses, the efficacy of GnRH antagonists in 'soft' protocols of ovarian stimulation has been evaluated in natural cycles, and the possibility of inducing the final oocyte maturation under antagonists either with native luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone or with GnRH agonists. The largest clinical studies carried out with cetrorelix or with ganirelix and published to date were analysed. Apart from the benefits of reducing the duration of the treatment, gonadotrophin requirements and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome incidence, there is still a serious debate on the potential deleterious effect of GnRH antagonists on implantation and pregnancy rates. More specific aspects such as cycle programming, application of GnRH antagonists in protocols for poor responders etc., were also reviewed in this survey.

Luteal insufficiency in first trimester

Luteal phase insufficiency is one of the reasons for implantation failure and has been responsible for miscarriages and unsuccessful assisted reproduction. Luteal phase defect is seen in women with polycystic ovaries, thyroid and prolactin disorder. Low progesterone environment is created iatrogenically due to interventions in assisted reproduction. Use of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogs to prevent the LH surge and aspiration of granulosa cells during the oocyte retrieval may impair the ability of corpus luteum to produce progesterone. Treatment of the underlying disorder and use of progestational agents like progesterone/human chorionic gonadotrophin have been found to be effective in women with a history of recurrent miscarriage. There has been no proved beneficial effect of using additional agents like ascorbic acid, estrogen, prednisolone along with progesterone. Despite their widespread use, further studies are required to establish the optimal treatment. Literature review and analysis of published studies on luteal phase support.

Effect of luteal-phase support on endometrial microRNA expression following controlled ovarian stimulation

BACKGROUND

Studies suggested that microRNAs influence cellular activities in the uterus including cell differentiation and embryo implantation. In assisted reproduction cycles, luteal phase support, given to improve endometrial characteristics and to facilitate the implantation process, has been a standard practice. The effect of different types of luteal phase support using steroid hormones in relation to endometrial miRNA profiles during the peri-implantation period has not seen described. This study was designed to evaluate the expression of miRNAs during the luteal phase following controlled ovarian stimulation for IVF and the influence of different luteal phase support protocols on miRNA profiles.

METHODS

The study was approved by the Johns Hopkins Hospital Institutional Review Board. Endometrial biopsies were obtained on the day of oocyte retrieval from 9 oocyte donors (group I). An additional endometrial biopsy was obtained 3-5 days later (Group II) after the donors were randomized into three groups. Group IIa had no luteal-phase support, group IIb had luteal support with micronized progesterone (P), and Group IIc had luteal support with progesterone plus 17-beta-estradiol (P + E). Total RNA was isolated and microarray analysis was performed using an Illumina miRNA expression panel.

RESULTS

A total of 526 miRNAs were identified. Out of those, 216 miRNAs were differentially regulated (p < 0.05) between the comparison groups. As compared to the day of retrieval, 19, 11 and 6 miRNAs were differentially regulated more than 2 fold in the groups of no support, in the P support only, and in the P + E support respectively, 3-5 days after retrieval. During the peri-implantation period (3-5 days after retrieval) the expression of 33 and 6 miRNAs increased, while the expression of 3 and 0 miRNAs decreased, in the P alone and in the P + E group respectively as compared to the no steroid supplementation group.

CONCLUSION

Luteal support following COS has a profound influence on miRNA profiles. Up or down regulation of miRNAs after P or P + E support suggest a role(s) of luteal support in the peri-implantation uterus in IVF cycles through the regulation of associated target genes.

Endometrial gene expression in the early luteal phase is impacted by mode of triggering final oocyte maturation in recFSH stimulated and GnRH antagonist co-treated IVF cycles

STUDY QUESTION

Do differences in endometrial gene expression exist after ovarian stimulation with four different regimens of triggering final oocyte maturation and luteal phase support in the same patient?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Significant differences in the expression of genes involved in receptivity and early implantation were seen between the four protocols.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

GnRH agonist triggering is an alternative to hCG triggering in GnRH antagonist co-treated cycles, resulting in an elimination of early ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Whereas previous studies have revealed a low ongoing clinical pregnancy rate after GnRH agonist trigger due to a high early pregnancy loss rate, despite supplementation with the standard luteal phase support, more recent studies, employing a 'modified' luteal phase support including a bolus of 1500 IU hCG on the day of oocyte aspiration, have reported ongoing pregnancy rates similar to those seen after hCG triggering.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE DURATION

A prospective randomized study was performed in four oocyte donors recruited from an oocyte donation program during the period 2010-2011.

PARTICIPANTS, MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Four oocyte donors in a university IVF center each prospectively underwent four consecutive stimulation protocols, with different modes of triggering final oocyte maturation and a different luteal phase support, followed by endometrial biopsy on Day 5 after oocyte retrieval. The following protocols were used: (A) 10 000 IU hCG and standard luteal phase support, (B) GnRH agonist (triptorelin 0.2 mg), followed by 1500 IU hCG 35 h after triggering final oocyte maturation, and standard luteal phase support, (C) GnRH agonist (triptorelin 0.2 mg) and standard luteal phase support and (D) GnRH agonist (triptorelin 0.2 mg) without luteal phase support. Microarray data analysis was performed with GeneSpring GX 11.5 (RMA algorithm). Pathway and network analysis was performed with the gene ontology software Ingenuity Pathways Analysis (Ingenuity® Systems, www.ingenuity.com, Redwood City, CA, USA). Samples were grouped and background intensity values were removed (cutoff at the lowest 20th percentile). A one-way ANOVA test (P< 0.05) was performed with Benjamini-Hochberg multiple testing correction.

MAIN RESULTS

Significant differences were seen in endometrial gene expression, related to the type of ovulation trigger and luteal phase support. However, the endometrial gene expression after the GnRH agonist trigger and a modified luteal phase support (B) was similar to the pattern seen after the hCG trigger (A).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The study was performed in four oocyte donors only; however, it is a strength of the study that the same donor underwent four consecutive stimulation protocols within 1 year to avoid inter-individual variations.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

These endometrial gene-expression findings support the clinical reports of a non-significant difference in live birth rates between the GnRH agonist trigger and the hCG trigger, when the GnRH agonist trigger is followed by a bolus of 1500 IU hCG at 35 h post trigger in addition to the standard luteal phase support.

STUDY FUNDING/ COMPETING INTERESTS

This study was supported by an un-restricted research grant by MSD Belgium.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

EudraCT number 2009-009429-26, protocol number 997 (P06034).

The impact of luteal phase support on endometrial estrogen and progesterone receptor expression: a randomized control trial

BACKGROUND

To assess the impact of luteal phase support on the expression of estrogen receptor (ER) alpha and progesterone receptors B (PR-B) on the endometrium of oocyte donors undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH).

METHODS

A prospective, randomized study was conducted in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for oocyte donation. Participants were randomized to receive no luteal support, vaginal progesterone alone, or vaginal progesterone plus orally administered 17 Beta estradiol. Endometrial biopsies were obtained at 4 time points in the luteal phase and evaluated by tissue microarray for expression of ER alpha and PR-B.

RESULTS

One-hundred and eight endometrial tissue samples were obtained from 12 patients. No differences were found in expression of ER alpha and PR-B among all the specimens with the exception of one sample value.

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of progesterone during the luteal phase of COH for oocyte donor cycles, either with or without estrogen, does not significantly affect the endometrial expression of ER alpha and PR.

GnRH agonist for triggering of final oocyte maturation: time for a change of practice?

BACKGROUND

GnRH agonist (GnRHa) triggering has been shown to significantly reduce the occurrence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) compared with hCG triggering; however, initially a poor reproductive outcome was reported after GnRHa triggering, due to an apparently uncorrectable luteal phase deficiency. Therefore, the challenge has been to rescue the luteal phase. Studies now report a luteal phase rescue, with a reproductive outcome comparable to that seen after hCG triggering.

METHODS

This narrative review is based on expert presentations and subsequent group discussions supplemented with publications from literature searches and the authors' knowledge. Moreover, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified and analysed either in fresh IVF cycles with embryo transfer (ET), oocyte donation cycles or cycles without ET; risk differences were calculated regarding pregnancy rate and OHSS rate.

RESULTS

In fresh IVF cycles with ET (9 RCTs) no OHSS was reported after GnRHa triggering [0% incidence in the GnRHa group: risk difference 5% (with 95% CI: -0.07 to 0.02)]. Importantly, the delivery rate improved significantly after modified luteal support [6% risk difference in favour of the HCG group (95% CI: -0.14 to 0.2)] when compared with initial studies with conventional luteal support [18% risk difference (95% CI: -0.36 to 0.01)]. In oocyte donation cycles (4 RCTs) the OHSS incidence is 0% [10% risk difference (95% CI: 0.02-0.40)].

CONCLUSIONS

GnRHa triggering is a valid alternative to hCG triggering, resulting in an elimination of OHSS. After modified luteal support there is now a non-significant difference of 6% in delivery rate in favour of hCG triggering.

The effect of adding oral oestradiol to progesterone as luteal phase support in ART cycles - a randomized controlled study

INTRODUCTION

Luteal phase support in assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles is still controversial. The present study was conducted to evaluate the effect of adding oral oestradiol to progesterone during ART cycles.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this prospective case control study, infertile women under 35 years old who were candidates for IVF/ICSI cycles in Royan Institute were enrolled. A long gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist protocol was used for ovarian stimulation. Patients were randomly divided into two groups for luteal phase support: the control group received vaginal administration of progesterone supplementation alone starting on the day after oocyte retrieval and continued until the tenth week if the chemical pregnancy test was positive. In the oestradiol group, 2 mg of oestradiol valerate was initiated orally with progesterone. The control group received a placebo instead of oestradiol.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight women were studied as oestradiol (N = 47) and control groups (N= 51). There were no significant differences in the mean number of retrieved oocytes, number of transferred embryos, or chemical and clinical pregnancy rates between the two groups. Although the serum progesterone concentration was higher in the oestradiol group in comparison to the control group on day 7, 10 and 12 after embryo transfer, these differences were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggested that adding oral oestradiol to vaginal progesterone supplementation does not improve the chemical and clinical pregnancy rates of IVF/ICSI cycles.

The efficiency of progesterone vaginal gel versus intramuscular progesterone for luteal phase supplementation in gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist cycles: a prospective clinical trial

We compared the efficiency of progesterone vaginal gel (PVG) with intramuscular progesterone (IMP) supplementation for luteal phase support after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer in gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist cycles. The treatment outcomes were similar for PVG and IMP for luteal support in GnRH-antagonist protocols. With its ease of use, high tolerability by patients, and fewer side effects, PVG can be a successful alternative to IMP.

Impact of luteal phase support on pregnancy rates in intrauterine insemination cycles: a prospective randomized study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of luteal phase support on pregnancy rates in ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles with gonadotropins in couples with unexplained infertility.

DESIGN

Prospective randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

University-based infertility clinic.

PATIENT(S)

Two hundred fourteen couples with unexplained infertility who were treated during 427 ovarian stimulation and IUI cycles with recombinant FSH.

INTERVENTION(S)

Patients underwent ovarian stimulation with recombinant FSH combined with IUI. Patients randomized into the study group (n = 109) received luteal phase support in the form of vaginal progesterone gel (Crinone 8% gel). Patients randomized into the control group (n = 105) received no luteal phase support.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Clinical pregnancy and live birth rate per cycle and per patient.

RESULT(S)

Demographic data were found to be homogeneous between the study and control groups. Clinical pregnancy rates per cycle and per patient were significantly higher in the study group (21.1% and 39.4%, respectively) compared with the control group (12.7% and 23.8%, respectively). Live birth rate per cycle and per patient was also significantly higher in patients with luteal support (17.4% and 35.8%, respectively) compared with control subjects (9.3% and 18.1%, respectively).

CONCLUSION(S)

Luteal phase support with vaginal progesterone gel significantly affects the success of ovarian stimulation and IUI cycles in patients with unexplained infertility.

Luteal phase characteristics following GnRH antagonist or agonist treatment - a comparative study

Due to inherent differences between gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists and agonists, their late effect on ovarian steroidal production during the luteal phase of IVF cycles may differ. The aim of this study was to characterize and compare the luteal phase hormonal profile after the use of GnRH antagonists or agonists in ovarian stimulation protocols for IVF, in non-conception cycles, to avoid the effect of human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) during the luteal phase in conception cycles. Seventy-eight normo-ovulatory patients <35 years old, undergoing IVF due to male or tubal infertility were randomly allocated either to a GnRH antagonist (study group) or GnRH agonist treatment (control group). Similar standard luteal support was given to all patients, using vaginal micronized progesterone. In non-conception cycles, no statistically significant differences were found comparing luteal phase. oestradiol or progesterone levels in the study and control groups. No statistically significant differences were found comparing the hormonal profile dynamics, the mid-luteal (HCG day +8) oestradiol/progesterone ratio and the percentage of mid-luteal oestradiol decline between the study and control groups. In conclusion, similar characteristics and dynamics of luteal phase oestradiol and progesterone were demonstrated comparing ovarian stimulation for IVF using GnRH agonist or antagonists, under similar luteal support.