GnRH agonist as novel luteal support: results of a randomized, parallel group, feasibility study using intranasal administration of buserelin*

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

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

The definition of unexplained infertility: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus on tests required to either diagnose unexplained infertility or use for research inclusion criteria. This leads to heterogeneity and bias affecting meta-analysis and best practice advice.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review analyses the variability of inclusion criteria applied to couples with unexplained infertility. We propose standardised criteria for use both in future research studies and clinical diagnosis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

CINAHL and MEDLINE online databases were searched up to November 2022 for all published studies recruiting couples with unexplained infertility, available in full text in the English language.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were collected in an Excel spreadsheet. Results were analysed per category and methodology or reference range.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 375 relevant studies, only 258 defined their inclusion criteria. The most commonly applied inclusion criteria were semen analysis, tubal patency and assessment of ovulation in 220 (85%), 232 (90%), 205 (79.5%) respectively. Only 87/220 (39.5%) studies reporting semen analysis used the World Health Organization (WHO) limits. Tubal patency was accepted if bilateral in 145/232 (62.5%) and if unilateral in 24/232 (10.3%). Ovulation was assessed using mid-luteal serum progesterone in 115/205 (56.1%) and by a history of regular cycles in 87/205 (42.4%). Other criteria, including uterine cavity assessment and hormone profile, were applied in less than 50% of included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights the heterogeneity among studied populations with unexplained infertility. Development and application of internationally accepted criteria will improve the quality of research and future clinical care.

Effect of luteal-phase GnRH agonist on frozen-thawed embryo transfer during artificial cycles: a randomised clinical pilot study

Purpose

This randomised clinical pilot study evaluated the effect of the mid-luteal additional single dose of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) on the clinical outcome of the females subjected to artificial cycle frozen-thawed embryo transfer (AC-FET).

Methods

A total of 129 females were randomised into two groups (70 in the control group and 59 in the intervention group). Both groups received standard luteal support. The intervention group was given an extra dose of 0.1 mg GnRH-a in the luteal phase. The live birth rate served as the primary endpoint. The secondary endpoints were the positivity of pregnancy tests, the clinical pregnancy rate, the miscarriage rate, the implantation rate, and the multiple pregnancy rate.

Results

There were more positive pregnancy tests, clinical pregnancies, live births, and twinning pregnancies, and fewer miscarriages observed in the intervention arm compared to the controls, though no statistical significance was concluded. No difference was found in the number of macrosomia in the two groups. There was no congenital abnormality newborn.

Conclusion

Overall, the difference of 12.1 percentage points in the live births rate (40.7% vs 28.6%) between the two groups, however, is statistically insignificant. the improvement of the pregnancy outcome supports the non-inferiority of GnRH-a added during the luteal phase in AC-FET. Larger-scale clinical trials are required to further establish the positive benefits.

Comparison of pregnancy rates in antagonist cycles after luteal support with GnRH-agonist versus progesterone: prospective randomized study

PURPOSE

To compare pregnancy rates in GnRH-antagonist cycles triggered with hCG after luteal phase support with intranasal GnRH-agonist as sole luteal phase support versus standard vaginal progesterone preparation.

METHODS

Prospective randomized controlled study of patients who underwent antagonist-based IVF cycles triggered with hCG at university-affiliated tertiary medical center between 2020 and 2022. Patients meeting the inclusion criteria were randomly assigned to either intranasal GnRH-agonist or vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support. Pregnancy rates were the main outcome compared between the two study groups.

RESULTS

A total of 150 patients underwent 164 cycles, 127 cycles of which were included in the study cohort. Of them, 64 (50.4%) and 63 (49.6%) cycles were treated with GnRH-agonist or progesterone, respectively, as sole luteal phase support. A significantly higher pregnancy rate was demonstrated in the GnRH-agonist group compared with the progesterone group. After adjustment of several potential confounders such as age, body mass index, past obstetric history, number of IVF cycles, oocyte retrieved and embryos transferred, GnRH-agonist was still associated with a higher pregnancy rate (odds ratio 3.4, 95% confidence interval 1.4-8.3). Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome rates were similar between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective study suggests that nasal GnRH-agonist for luteal phase support is associated with higher pregnancy rates compared with standard progesterone support in an antagonist-based protocol triggered with hCG, while maintaining a similar safety profile.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05484193. Date of registration: August 02 2022. The trial was retrospectively registered.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Single-administered GnRH agonist as luteal phase support in insemination cycles: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To find out whether a single-administered GnRH agonist improves the live birth rate in real-life patients undergoing intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles.

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective, randomized controlled trial in a public single tertiary center in Tampere University Hospital, Finland. Altogether 251 IUI cycles in 163 patients were randomized to triptorelin and a control group between January 2017 and April 2019. In the triptorelin group, the participants had a single administration of a subcutaneous GnRH agonist triptorelin 0.1 mg at the time of implantation. In the control group, there was no luteal phase support. The primary outcome measure was the live birth rate (LBR). The secondary outcome measures were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and miscarriage rate.

RESULTS

Overall, the live birth rate was lower in the triptorelin group compared to the control group (7.9 vs. 12.1%; p = .297). The clinical pregnancy rates were 12.6 and 13.7%, respectively. There were 2.4% miscarriages in the triptorelin group and no miscarriages in the control group. Ovarian stimulation with letrozole was associated with lower LBR among the triptorelin group, in comparison to the control group (0 vs. 14.7%, p = .020). In contrast, when gonadotrophin was added to the letrozole, LBR was almost doubled compared to the control group (15.9 vs. 8.3%, p = .341).

CONCLUSION

A single administration of GnRH agonist in the luteal phase does not improve LBR in IUI cycles.

Single Dose Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Agonist Luteal Support in Fresh Embryo Transfer: Variation in Timing, Type, and Dosage

Objectives

To evaluate the effects of the addition of single-dose GnRH agonist to the routine progestogens use for luteal phase support on IVF outcome as compared to progestogens only.

Methods

This is a retrospective case-control study on selected patients who underwent IVF treatment with fresh embryo transfer (ET) under Medically Assisted Conception Unit, University Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Center for the period of June 2015–June 2018. A higher dose of 0.2 mg subcutaneous Decapeptyl was administered 2 days before fresh ET concurrent with routine progestogen support. Patients with different luteal phase regimes, frozen embryo transfer and medical records with missing data were excluded. Their medical records were reviewed, and data analyzed. The pregnancy outcomes measured included biochemical pregnancy rates, clinical pregnancy rates, live birth rates and miscarriage rates.

Results

A total of 786 patients were analyzed. Four hundred forty-four patients were given luteal phase support with progestogens and GnRH agonist, whereas 342 patients served as control were given progestogens only. The study group showed higher biochemical pregnancy rate (47.7 vs. 44.4%,), clinical pregnancy rate (25.7 vs. 23.4%) and livebirth rate (24.3 vs. 22.2%), respectively but not statistically significant. The rate of miscarriage among the study group was lower (4.5% vs 9.4%) compared to the progestogen group alone. Nonetheless, the OHSS rate was slightly increased in the study group (4.5 vs. 3.5%) despite using a mild stimulation protocol.

Conclusions

New regime of GnRH agonist luteal support in addition to the standard progestogen support was found to be beneficial in overall IVF outcome.

Individualized luteal phase support after fresh embryo transfer: unanswered questions, a review

Background

Luteal phase support (LPS) is an important part of assisted reproductive technology (ART), and adequate LPS is crucial for embryo implantation. At present, a great number of studies have put emphasis on an individualized approach to controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) and endometrium preparation of frozen- thawed embryo transfer (FET); However, not much attention has been devoted to the luteal phase and almost all ART cycles used similar LPS protocol bases on experience.

Main body

This review aims to concisely summarize individualized LPS protocols in fresh embryo transfer cycles with hCG trigger or GnRH-a trigger. The PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched using the keywords: (luteal phase support or LPS) AND (assisted reproductive technology or ART or in vitro fertilization or IVF). We performed comprehensive literature searches in the English language describing the luteal phase support after ART, since 1978 and ending in May 2019. Recent studies have shown that many modified LPS programs were used in ART cycle. In the cycle using hCG for final oocyte maturation, the progesterone with or without low dose of hCG may be adequate to maintain pregnancy. In the cycle using GnRH-a for trigger, individualized low dose of hCG administration with or without progesterone was suggested. The optimal timing to start the LPS would be between 24 and 72 h after oocyte retrieval and should last at least until the pregnancy test is positive. Addition of E₂ and the routes of progesterone administration bring no beneficial effect on the outcomes after ART.

Conclusions

Individualized LPS should be applied, according to the treatment protocol, the patients’ specific characteristics, and desires.

Luteal phase support (LPS) is an important part of assisted reproductive technology (ART). In the cycle using hCG for final oocyte maturation, the progesterone with or without low dose of hCG may be adequate to maintain pregnancy. In the cycle using GnRH-a for trigger, individualized low dose of hCG administration with or without progesterone was suggested. The optimal timing to start the LPS would be between 24 and 72 h after oocyte retrieval and should last at least until the pregnancy test is positive. Addition of E₂ and the routes of progesterone administration bring no beneficial effect on the outcomes after ART. Individualized LPS should be applied, according to the treatment protocol, the patients’ specific characteristics, and desires.

Efficacy of daily GnRH agonist for luteal phase support following GnRH agonist triggered ICSI cycles versus conventional strategy: A Randomized controlled trial

Objective:

The use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) as an alternative for human chronic gonadotropin (hCG) trigger has potential benefits, but the optimal luteal phase support (LPS) following GnRHa trigger remains to be elucidated. We aimed to investigate a new strategy (daily GnRH agonist for LPS following GnRH agonist trigger) as an alternative for the conventional approach to the patients undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).

Methods:

In this randomized controlled trial study, 44 ICSI patients were randomly assigned into two groups: group 1, patients received standard strategy (hCG trigger [10000 IU] and progesterone bid [400 mg/BD] for LPS); group 2, patients received a dose of GnRHa (0.2 mg) for ovulation trigger and subcutaneous injection of GnRHa bid (0.2 mg) for LPS.

Results:

The pregnancy, miscarriage, and live birth rates for the patients undergoing LPS following the GnRHa trigger were similar to those of patients undergoing the standard strategy.

Conclusions:

We showed that a daily subcutaneous injection of GnRHa for LPS following the GnRHa trigger can be successfully performed as an alternative to the standard strategy, with comparable pregnancy and live birth rates in ICSI patients.

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.

Single-dose administration of a short-acting gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist does not affect cycle outcome in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles

Objective

This prospective study aimed to assess the effect of short-acting gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) administration on pregnancy outcomes in frozen–thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycles.

Methods

Patients who planned to have FET in Peking Union Medical College Hospital (China) were recruited for this study and randomly assigned into two groups. Patients in the experimental group (n = 460) received triptorelin acetate on the day of embryo transfer along with routine luteal support. Patients in the control group (n = 433) only received luteal support. One dose (0.1 mg) of a short-acting GnRHa was administered on the day of blastocyte transfer. The rates for clinical pregnancy, biochemical pregnancy, implantation, miscarriage, and ectopic pregnancy were compared between the groups.

Results

There were no significant differences in the number and quality of blastocytes transferred between the two groups. In the experimental and control groups, the clinical pregnancy rate was 56.3% and 50.58%, the biochemical pregnancy rate was 15.78% and 18.94%, and the median implantation rate was 39.98% and 38.01%, respectively, with no significant difference between the groups. Biochemical pregnancy and abortion and the ectopic pregnancy rate were not significantly different between the two groups.

Conclusion

In FET cycles, a GnRHa does not affect the pregnancy outcome.

Multiple-dose versus single-dose gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist after first in vitro fertilization failure associated with luteal phase deficiency: A randomized controlled trial

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of multiple- versus single-dose gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) addition to luteal phase support (LPS), in patients with a first in vitro fertilization (IVF) failure associated with luteal phase deficiency (LPD).

Methods

Eighty patients with a first IVF failure associated with LPD were randomly assigned into single-dose and multiple-dose GnRH-a groups. In the second IVF attempt, patients in the single-dose group were given standard LPS plus a single dose of GnRH-a 6 days after oocyte retrieval. Patients in the multiple-dose group received standard LPS plus 14 daily injections of GnRH-a. Children conceived were followed up for 2 years.

Results

Pregnancy (67.5% vs. 42.5%), clinical pregnancy (50.0% vs. 22.5%), and live birth rates (42.5% vs. 20.0%) were significantly higher in the multiple-dose versus single-dose GnRH-a group. Patients in the multiple-dose GnRH-a group had significantly higher progesterone levels 14 days after oocyte recovery (35.9 vs. 21.4 ng/mL). No significant difference existed in the status at birth or developmental and behavior assessments of 2-year-old children conceived in both groups.

Conclusions

Daily addition of GnRH-a to standard LPS can achieve better pregnancy outcomes with a sustained safety profile in patients with a first IVF failure associated with LPD.

GnRHa for trigger and luteal phase support in natural cycle frozen embryo transfer - A proof of concept study

We aimed to explore whether ovulation induced by a GnRH analogue (GnRHa), followed by daily GnRHa luteal support provides an efficient platform for natural cycle frozen embryo transfer (NC-FET). In this cohort study, included were normo-ovulatory women who underwent NC-FET cycles, under the age of 40, with an antral follicle count > eight. Ovulation was triggered with triptorelin (0.2 mg Decapeptyl; Ferring), and luteal support was initiated two days later, using a Nafarelin inhaler (Synarel, Pfizer), 200 μg twice daily. Main outcome measures were luteal estradiol and progesterone levels (three to five days following ovulation), implantation rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, early pregnancy loss rate, and live birth rate. Fifty-one patients treated between 2017 and 2018 were included. Mid luteal progesterone levels among study patients, were non-significantly different between patients who achieved pregnancy and those who did not, but differed significantly on day 14 following ovulation (86.0 ± 31.3 vs. 9.8 ± 9.5 nmol/L, respectively, p < 0.001). Twenty-three patients achieved a clinical pregnancy (45.1 %); interestingly, there were no chemical pregnancies. Three pregnancies ended in an early abortion at 6-7 weeks gestation, and 20 pregnancies continued as ongoing pregnancies (39.2 %). One patient had a late abortion at 16 weeks gestation, and 14 had a live birth. In conclusion, in this proof of concept study, inducing ovulation with a bolus of GnRHa in NC-FET, followed by repeated daily GnRHa administration, resulted in satisfactory luteal phase steroid levels and high ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist for ovulation trigger - OHSS prevention and use of modified luteal phase support for fresh embryo transfer

The introduction of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) trigger greatly impacted modern IVF treatment. Patients at low risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) development, undergoing fresh embryo transfer and GnRHa trigger can be offered a virtually OHSS-free treatment with non-inferior reproductive outcomes by using a modified luteal phase support in terms of small boluses of human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG), daily recombinant luteinizing hormone LH (rLH) or GnRHa. In the OHSS risk patient, GnRHa trigger can safely be performed, followed by a 'freeze-all' policy with a minimal risk of OHSS development and high live birth rates in the subsequent frozen embryo transfer cycle. Importantly, GnRHa trigger opened the 'black box' of the luteal phase, promoting research in the most optimal steroid levels during the luteal phase. GnRHa trigger allows high-dose gonadotropin stimulation to achieve the optimal number of oocytes and embryos needed to ensure the highest chance of live birth. This review thoroughly discusses how the GnRHa trigger concept adds safety and efficacy to modern IVF in terms of OHSS prevention. Furthermore, the optimal luteal phase management after GnRHa trigger in fresh embryo transfer cycles is discussed.

GnRH agonists to sustain the luteal phase in antagonist IVF cycles: a randomized prospective trial

BACKGROUND

The addition of a GnRH analogue to the luteal phase in in vitro fertilization programs has been seldom proposed due to the presence of GnRH receptors in the endometrium. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of triptorelin addition in short antagonist cycles, compared to cycles where the only supplementation was progesterone.

METHODS

The primary objective of this study was the study of the effect of Triptorelin addiction during the luteal phase on the live birth rate. Secondary objectives of efficacy were pregnancy rates and implantation rates, as well as safety in terms of OHSS risks. The study was a prospective, randomized, open study, performed in two independent Centers from July 2013 to October 2015. Patients were divided into three groups: a) Regular antagonist protocol, with only luteal progesterone; b) Antagonist protocol with luteal triptorelin as multiple injections, c) Antagonist protocol with luteal triptorelin as single bolus. Descriptive statistics were obtained for all the parameters. Mean and standard deviation were used for all quantitative parameters. Differences between percentages were studied using Chi-square test generalized to the comparison of several proportions.

RESULTS

A total number of 1344 patients completed the study, 786 under the age of 35 years, and 558 over 35 years. It was observed an increase of positive HCG results, Clinical pregnancy rates and Delivery rates when triptorelin was added in the luteal phase, irrespective whether as a single bolus or five injections. This increase was statistically significant both for pregnancy rates and delivery rates. The statistic difference between pregnancies and deliveries obtained with or without luteal triptorelin reached p < 0,01. No increase of OHSS risk was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

From this large study it appears that the concept of luteal phase supplementation should be revisited. From our study it appears that triptorelin addition to the luteal phase of antagonist cycles, either as a single bolus or using multiple injections, is a good tool to optimize ART results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Provincia di Bergamo (n 1203/2013).

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.

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 phase support with GnRH agonist does not eliminate the risk for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome

This study aims to report a case of early, severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) following GnRH agonist trigger for final oocyte maturation despite luteal support with a GnRH agonist. Contrary to the claim that luteal support using a GnRH agonist eliminates the risk for OHSS in high-risk patients, this report alerts practitioners to the risk of severe OHSS development despite GnRH agonist luteal support in patients receiving GnRH antagonist protocol with GnRH agonist triggering and cautions the practitioners to consider other measures of OHSS prevention.

Ovarian manipulation in ART: going beyond physiological standards to provide best clinical outcomes

Current knowledge on ovarian physiology has challenged the traditional concept of folliculogenesis, creating the basis for novel ovarian stimulation protocols in assisted reproduction technology. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the efficacy of novel clinical interventions that could aid clinicians in individualizing their protocols to patients' characteristics and personal situations. We conducted a literature review of the available evidence on new approaches for ovarian stimulation from both retrospective and prospective studies in the PubMed database. Here, we present some of the most important interventions, including follicle growth in the gonadotropin-independent and dependent stage, manipulation of estradiol production throughout ovarian stimulation, control of mid-cycle gonadotropin surges, and luteal phase support after different stimulation protocols and trigger agents. The latest research on IVF has moved physicians away from the classical physiology, allowing the development of new strategies to decouple organ functions from the female reproductive system and challenging the traditional concept of IVF.

Effect of mid-luteal phase GnRH agonist on frozen-thawed embryo transfers during natural menstrual cycles: a randomised clinical pilot study

This prospective randomised crossover study evaluated the effect of mid-luteal single-dose gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (triptoreline) on pregnancy outcomes in natural-cycle frozen embryo transfers (FETs). Ninety-eight women were randomised to receive either standard luteal support with vaginal micronised progesterone or an additional single dose of 0.1 mg triptoreline at the time of implantation. The intervention group was composed of 65 FET cycles and the control group of 62 cycles. In the intervention group, there were more positive pregnancy tests, clinical pregnancies and live births, but the differences did not reach statistical significance. The mean beta human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG) concentration of singleton pregnancies was significantly lower in the intervention group compared to the control group (p = 0.048). No difference was detected in the median birth weight of the newborns.

Progesterone administration for luteal phase deficiency in human reproduction: an old or new issue?

Luteal phase deficiency (LPD) is described as a condition of insufficient progesterone exposure to maintain a regular secretory endometrium and allow for normal embryo implantation and growth. Recently, scientific focus is turning to understand the physiology of implantation, in particular the several molecular markers of endometrial competence, through the recent transcriptomic approaches and microarray technology. In spite of the wide availability of clinical and instrumental methods for assessing endometrial competence, reproducible and reliable diagnostic tests for LPD are currently lacking, so no type-IA evidence has been proposed by the main scientific societies for assessing endometrial competence in infertile couples. Nevertheless, LPD is a very common condition that may occur during a series of clinical conditions, and during controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) and hyperstimulation (COH) programs. In many cases, the correct approach to treat LPD is the identification and correction of any underlying condition while, in case of no underlying dysfunction, the treatment becomes empiric. To date, no direct data is available regarding the efficacy of luteal phase support for improving fertility in spontaneous cycles or in non-gonadotropin induced ovulatory cycles. On the contrary, in gonadotropin in vitro fertilization (IVF) and non-IVF cycles, LPD is always present and progesterone exerts a significant positive effect on reproductive outcomes. The scientific debate still remains open regarding progesterone administration protocols, specially on routes of administration, dose and timing and the potential association with other drugs, and further research is still needed.

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.

Addition of gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist for luteal phase support in in-vitro fertilization: an analysis of 2739 cycles

OBJECTIVE

Luteal phase is defective in in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles, and many regimens were tried for the very best luteal phase support (LPS). Gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist use, which was administered as an adjunct to the luteal phase support in IVF cycles, was suggested to improve pregnancy outcome measures in certain randomized studies. We analyzed the effects of addition of GnRH agonist to standard progesterone luteal support on pregnancy outcome measures, particularly the live birth rates.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study, including 2739 IVF cycles. Long GnRH agonist and antagonist stimulation IVF cycles with cleavage-stage embryo transfer were included. Cycles were divided into two groups: Group A included cycles with single-dose GnRH agonist plus progesterone LPS and Group B included progesterone only LPS. Live birth rates were the primary outcome measures of the analysis. Miscarriage rates and multiple pregnancy rates were the secondary outcome measures.

RESULTS

Live birth rates were not statistically different in GnRH agonist plus progesterone (Group A) and progesterone only (Group B) groups in both the long agonist and antagonist stimulation arms (40.8%/41.2% and 32.8%/34.4%, p<0.05 respectively). Moreover, pregnancy rates, implantation rates, and miscarriage rates were found to be similar between groups. Multiple pregnancy rates in antagonist cycles were significantly higher in Group A than those in Group B (12.0% and 6.9%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

A beneficial effect of a single dose of GnRH agonist administration as a luteal phase supporting agent is yet to be determined because of the wide heterogeneity of data present in literature. Well-designed randomized clinical studies are required to clarify any effect of luteal GnRH agonist addition on pregnancy outcome measures with different doses, timing, and administration routes of GnRH agonists.

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.

Ovulation induction and luteal support with GnRH agonist in patients at high risk for hyperstimulation syndrome

The aim of this study was to compare GnRHa trigger and luteal addition of triptorelin to hCG trigger for final oocyte maturation in women at high risk for OHSS undergoing IVF. A total of 423 patients were divided in two groups both stimulated using antagonist short protocol. Gonadotropins 75-150 UI/day were started on day 2-5, GnRH antagonist was added when the lead follicle was >14 mm and the final trigger was obtained with hCG 250 µg or triptorelin 0.2 mg. The luteal phase was supported with progesterone alone in the hCG group, with progesterone plus triptorelin 0.1 every other day from embryo transfer in the triptorelin group. In the triptorelin group we did neither have to suspend any embryo transfer, nor we have any early clinical OHSS. In the control group, 13 patients were suspended due to symptomatic high risk for OHSS and two patients developed a clinically significant OHSS. No statistically significant difference was observed in terms of clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates and implantation rates. Our results indicate that a protocol including GnRHa as trigger and an intensive luteal phase supported with GnRHa is safer than a standard antagonist protocol using hCG as trigger. It displays similar results, therefore it can be used as the first choice in patients at high risk for OHSS.

Synchronised approach for intrauterine insemination in subfertile couples

BACKGROUND

In many countries intrauterine insemination (IUI) is the treatment of first choice for a subfertile couple when the infertility work up reveals an ovulatory cycle, at least one open Fallopian tube and sufficient spermatozoa. The final goal of this treatment is to achieve a pregnancy and deliver a healthy (singleton) live birth. The probability of conceiving with IUI depends on various factors including age of the couple, type of subfertility, ovarian stimulation and the timing of insemination. IUI should logically be performed around the moment of ovulation. Since spermatozoa and oocytes have only limited survival time correct timing of the insemination is essential. As it is not known which technique of timing for IUI results in the best treatment outcome, we compared different techniques for timing IUI and different time intervals.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of different synchronisation methods in natural and stimulated cycles for IUI in subfertile couples.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for all publications which described randomised controlled trials of the timing of IUI. We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (1966 to October 2014), EMBASE (1974 to October 2014), MEDLINE (1966 to October 2014) and PsycINFO (inception to October 2014) electronic databases and prospective trial registers. Furthermore, we checked the reference lists of all obtained studies and performed a handsearch of conference abstracts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different timing methods for IUI were included. The following interventions were evaluated: detection of luteinising hormone (LH) in urine or blood, single test; human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) administration; combination of LH detection and hCG administration; basal body temperature chart; ultrasound detection of ovulation; gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist administration; or other timing methods.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the trials, extracted the data and assessed study risk of bias. We performed statistical analyses in accordance with the guidelines for statistical analysis developed by The Cochrane Collaboration. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighteen RCTs were included in the review, of which 14 were included in the meta-analyses (in total 2279 couples). The evidence was current to October 2013. The quality of the evidence was low or very low for most comparisons . The main limitations in the evidence were failure to describe study methods, serious imprecision and attrition bias.Ten RCTs compared different methods of timing for IUI. We found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates between hCG injection versus LH surge (odds ratio (OR) 1.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 18, 1 RCT, 24 women, very low quality evidence), urinary hCG versus recombinant hCG (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.03, 1 RCT, 284 women, low quality evidence) or hCG versus GnRH agonist (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.6, 3 RCTS, 104 women, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence).Two RCTs compared the optimum time interval from hCG injection to IUI, comparing different time frames that ranged from 24 hours to 48 hours. Only one of these studies reported live birth rates, and found no difference between the groups (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.00, 1 RCT, 204 couples). One study compared early versus late hCG administration and one study compared different dosages of hCG, but neither reported the primary outcome of live birth.We found no evidence of a difference between any of the groups in rates of pregnancy or adverse events (multiple pregnancy, miscarriage, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS)). However, most of these data were very low quality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to determine whether there is any difference in safety and effectiveness between different methods of synchronization of ovulation and insemination. More research is needed.

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.

Evaluation of the impact of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist as an adjuvant in luteal-phase support on IVF outcome

OBJECTIVES:

To evaluate whether three daily doses of GnRH agonist (Inj. Lupride 1 mg SC) administered 6 days after oocyte retrieval increases ongoing pregnancy rates following embryo transfer (ET) in cycles stimulated with the long GnRH agonist protocol.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN:

Prospective randomized controlled study in a tertiary care center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Four hundred and twenty six women undergoing ET following controlled ovarian stimulation with a long GnRH agonist protocol were included. In addition to routine luteal-phase support (LPS) with progesterone, women were randomized to receive three 1 mg doses of Lupride 6 days after oocyte retrieval. Computer-generated randomization was done on the day of ET. Ongoing pregnancy rate beyond 20^th week of gestation was the primary outcome measure. The trial was powered to detect a 13% absolute increase from an assumed 27% ongoing pregnancy rate in the control group, with an alpha error level of 0.05 and a beta error level of 0.2.

RESULTS:

There were 59 (27.69%) ongoing pregnancies in the GnRHa group, and 56 (26.29%) in the control group (P = 0.827). Implantation, clinical pregnancy and multiple pregnancy rates were likewise similar in the GnRHa and placebo groups.

CONCLUSIONS:

Three 1 mg doses of Lupride administration 6 days after oocyte retrieval in the long protocol cycles does not result in an increase in ongoing pregnancy rates.

Endocrinological insights into different in vitro fertilization treatment aspects

The science of reproductive endocrinology/in vitro fertilization (IVF) has moved forward considerably since the first IVF baby was born in 1978. IVF was originally indicated for women with tubal factor infertility, but it has now become the treatment for couples with unexplained subfertility, male subfertility, cervical factor, failed ovulation induction, endometriosis or unilateral tubal pathology. IVF was initially performed with the single dominant ovarian follicle produced during a spontaneous menstrual cycle. This was very inefficient and pregnancy rates were dismal. Consequently, superovulation protocols using parenteral gonadotrophins to induce maturation of multiple follicles were soon adopted worldwide. In addition, any supernumerary embryos remaining after embryo transfer may be cryopreserved for future embryo transfers without the need for another fresh IVF cycle. A greater understanding of IVF endocrinology has led to improved IVF pregnancy outcomes and satisfaction for the anxious parents. However, with the greater success of IVF treatment, new complications associated with the treatment arise, namely the ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Ovarian hyperstimulation can be associated with severe morbidity and may be even fatal. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome is an iatrogenic condition secondary to medical stimulation of the ovary, and was virtually unknown until IVF treatment was initiated. This article will discuss the recent developments in IVF treatment endocrinology and protocols, as well as prevention/treatment of its complications.

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.

Administration of single-dose GnRH agonist in the luteal phase in ICSI cycles: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The effects of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) administered in the luteal phase remains controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of the administration of a single-dose of GnRH-a in the luteal phase on ICSI clinical outcomes.

METHODS

The research strategy included the online search of databases. Only randomized studies were included. The outcomes analyzed were implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) per transfer and ongoing pregnancy rate. The fixed effects model was used for odds ratio. In all trials, a single dose of GnRH-a was administered at day 5/6 after ICSI procedures.

RESULTS

All cycles presented statistically significantly higher rates of implantation (P<0.0001), CPR per transfer (P=0.006) and ongoing pregnancy (P=0.02) in the group that received luteal-phase GnRH-a administration than in the control group (without luteal-phase-GnRH-a administration). When meta-analysis was carried out only in trials that had used long GnRH-a ovarian stimulation protocol, CPR per transfer (P=0.06) and ongoing pregnancy (P=0.23) rates were not significantly different between the groups, but implantation rate was significant higher (P=0.02) in the group that received luteal-phase-GnRH-a administration. On the other hand, the results from trials that had used GnRH antagonist multi-dose ovarian stimulation protocol showed statistically significantly higher implantation (P=0.0002), CPR per transfer (P=0.04) and ongoing pregnancy rate (P=0.04) in the luteal-phase-GnRH-a administration group. The majority of the results presented heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings demonstrate that the luteal-phase single-dose GnRH-a administration can increase implantation rate in all cycles and CPR per transfer and ongoing pregnancy rate in cycles with GnRH antagonist ovarian stimulation protocol. Nevertheless, by considering the heterogeneity between the trials, it seems premature to recommend the use of GnRH-a in the luteal phase. Additional randomized controlled trials are necessary before evidence-based recommendations can be provided.

Synchronised approach for intrauterine insemination in subfertile couples

BACKGROUND

Intrauterine insemination (IUI) should logically be performed around the moment of ovulation. Since spermatozoa and oocytes have only limited survival times correct timing is essential. As it is not known which technique of timing for IUI results in the best treatment outcome, we compared different techniques for timing IUI and different time intervals.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of different synchronisation methods in natural and stimulated cycles for IUI in subfertile couples.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched for all publications which described randomised controlled trials of the timing of IUI. We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), (1966 to March 2009), EMBASE (1974 to March 2009) and Science Direct (1966 to March 2009) electronic databases. Furthermore, we checked the reference lists of all obtained studies and performed a handsearch of conference abstracts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only truly randomised controlled trials comparing different timing methods for IUI were included. The following interventions were evaluated: detection of luteinising hormone (LH) in urine or blood, single test; human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) administration; combination of LH detection and hCG administration; basal body temperature chart; ultrasound detection of ovulation; gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist administration; or other timing methods.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the trials to be included according to the above mentioned criteria. We performed statistical analyses in accordance with the guidelines for statistical analysis developed by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten studies were included comparing urinary LH surge versus hCG injection; recombinant hCG versus urinary hCG; and hCG versus a GnRH agonist. One study compared the optimum time interval from hCG injection to IUI. The results of these studies showed no significant differences between different timing methods for IUI expressed as live birth rates: hCG versus LH surge (odds ratio (OR) 1.0, 95% CI 0.06 to 18); urinary hCG versus recombinant hCG (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.0); and hCG versus GnRH agonist (OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.42 to 3.1). All the secondary outcomes analysed showed no significant differences between treatment groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence to advise one particular treatment option over another. The choice should be based on hospital facilities, convenience for the patient, medical staff, costs and drop-out levels. Since different time intervals between hCG and IUI did not result in different pregnancy rates, a more flexible approach might be allowed.

Beneficial effect of luteal-phase gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist administration on implantation rate after intracytoplasmic sperm injection

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist, administered in the luteal phase, on intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) outcome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and eighty women undergoing ovarian stimulation for ICSI were enrolled in this study. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a single dose of GnRH agonist or placebo. Implantation rate and clinical pregnancy rate were the main outcomes.

RESULTS

Administration of 0.1 mg of the GnRH agonist triptorelin on day 3 after embryo transfer led to a significant improvement in implantation rate (12.3% vs. 7.3%) and clinical pregnancy rate (25.5% vs. 10.0%) as compared with placebo.

CONCLUSION

Luteal phase GnRH agonist administration enhances ICSI clinical outcomes.

Expression of mRNA and proteins for GnRH I and II and their receptors in primate corpus luteum during menstrual cycle

The differential expression of mRNA and protein of GnRH I, II and their receptors (RI and RII) in the monkey corpus luteum (CL) were measured during different stages of the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle as an initial step towards considering the role and regulation of GnRH (I and II) system during luteinization and luteolysis in primates. RT-PCR confirmed the sequence identity of PCR products and real time PCR quantified specific mRNA expressions. Proteins were localized by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Changes in mRNA expression patterns of GnRH I and II (increased) and GnRH RII (decreased) were maximal at mid-late to late stages, that is, at CL regression, where as GnRH RI was low during the entire luteal phase. However, RT-PCR and IHC studies confirmed the presence of GnRH RI at both mRNA and protein levels, respectively. IHC results showed the presence of GnRH I, II and their receptors in steroidogenic cells (granulose-luteal cells and thecal-luteal cells) across the luteal phase. Hence, GnRH I and II systems may have a role on both luteinization (from early to mid stages of CL) and luteolysis (from mid-late to very-late stages of CL). These novel findings suggest that monkey luteal GnRH system may have a role in fertility regulation in paracrine and/or autocrine manner.

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.