Contribution to More Patient-Friendly ART Treatment: Efficacy of Continuous Low-Dose GnRH Agonist as the Only Luteal Support-Results of a Prospective, Randomized, Comparative Study

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.

Dydrogesterone supplementation in addition to routine micronized progesterone administration for luteal support in cycles triggered with lone GnRH agonist results in an acceptable pregnancy rate and avoids the need to freeze embryos

BACKGROUND

Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is reduced when using antagonist cycle with gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist trigger before ovum pick up. This trigger induces short luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) peaks, resulting in an inadequate luteal phase and a reduced implantation rate. We assessed whether the luteal phase can be rescued by supplementing with oral dydrogesterone (duphaston) in antagonist cycles after a lone GnRH agonist trigger.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study. The study group (N.=123) included women who underwent IVF. Patients received a GnRH-antagonist with a lone GnRH-agonist trigger due to imminent OHSS. The control group (N.=374) included patients who underwent a standard antagonist protocol with a dual trigger of a GnRH-agonist and human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG). All the patients were treated with micronized progesterone (utrogestan) for luteal phase support. Study patients were given duphaston in addition.

RESULTS

The fertilization rate was comparable between the two groups. The mean number of embryos transferred, the clinical pregnancy rate and the take-home baby rate were comparable between groups (1.5±0.6 vs. 1.5±0.5 and 46.3% vs. 41.2%, and 66.7% vs. 87.7%, respectively). No OHSS event was reported in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

This study was the first to evaluate outcomes of duphaston supplementation for luteal support in an antagonist cycle with lone GnRH agonist trigger. The functionality of the luteal phase of those cycles could be restored by adding duphaston. This approach was found to be safe and prevented the need to postpone embryo transfer in case of pending OHSS.

GnRH agonist as a luteal support in IVF cycle: mini-review—is there a role?

Background

It has been established that assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles are usually accompanied by a defective luteal phase, and that luteal phase support (LPS) is mandatory to improve reproductive outcomes. This review aims to summarize the hypothesis, safety and current evidence about GnRH agonist as a luteal phase support in ART.

Main body

There are many regimens of luteal phase support to improve ART outcomes in women undergoing fresh and thawed cycles. Luteal phase support drugs include progesterone, human chorionic gonadotropin, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist, estradiol, and recombinant luteinizing hormone. There is some debate about optimal drugs and timing for start of LPS in ART cycles.

Conclusion

Although most centers support luteal phase by vaginal progesterone, GnRH agonist is a debatable drug for luteal support cycles.

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.

Single-Dose Versus Multiple-Dose GnRH Agonist for Luteal-Phase Support in Women Undergoing IVF/ICSI Cycles: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Although gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist has been introduced as a beneficial luteal phase support (LPS), the optimal strategy of GnRH agonist remains unclear. This network meta-analysis was therefore performed to determine the comparative efficacy and safety of multiple-dose versus single-dose GnRH agonist protocol for LPS in patients undergoing IVF/ICSI cycles.

METHODS

We searched relevant studies in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from their inception util to September 2021. Live birth, clinical pregnancy rate, multiple pregnancy rate, and clinical abortion rate was evaluated. Pairwise and network meta-analysis were conducted using RevMan and ADDIS based on random-effects model, respectively. Moreover, the prioritization of protocols based on ranking probabilities for different outcomes were performed.

RESULTS

Sixteen RCTs met our eligibility criteria. Pairwise meta-analysis showed that multiple-dose protocol of GnRH agonist was effective for increasing live birth rate (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.83, p=0.01) and clinical pregnancy rate (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.56, p=0.05) as well as decreasing clinical abortion rate (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.90, p=0.02). Meanwhile, single-dose protocol of GnRH agonist was effective for increasing clinical pregnancy rate (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.89, p=0.007) and multiple pregnancy rate (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.12 to 5.78, p=0.03). However, network meta-analysis only confirmed that multiple-dose protocol of GnRH agonist was the best efficacious strategy for live birth rate (OR 2.04, 95% CrI 1.19 to 3.93) and clinical pregnancy rate (OR 2.10, 95% CrI 1.26 to 3.54).

CONCLUSION

Based on the results of NMA, multiple-dose protocol may be the optimal strategy for patients undergoing IVF/ICSI cycles owing to its advantage in increasing live birth and clinical pregnancy rate. Moreover, single-dose protocol may be the optimal strategy for improving multiple pregnancy rate. However, with the limitations, more RCTs are required to confirm our findings.

Luteal-phase support in assisted reproductive technology: An ongoing challenge

It has been shown that in controlled ovarian hyper stimulation cycles, defective luteal phase is common. There are many protocols for improving pregnancy outcomes in women undergoing fresh and frozen in vitro fertilization cycles. These approaches include progesterone supplements, human chorionic gonadotropin, estradiol, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist, and recombinant luteinizing hormone. The main challenge is luteal-phase support (LPS) in cycles with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist triggering. There is still controversy about the optimal component and time for starting LPS in assisted reproductive technology cycles. This review aims to summarize the various protocols suggested for LPS in in vitro fertilization cycles.

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.

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.

Suboptimal response to GnRH agonist trigger: causes and practical management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

GnRH agonist products are used extensively worldwide to trigger ovulation and final oocyte maturation in in vitro fertilization cycles. The purpose of this article is to outline possible causes for a suboptimal response to the GnRH agonist trigger.

RECENT FINDINGS

Risk factors for such a suboptimal response include prolonged hormonal contraceptive use, previous GnRHa-induced pituitary downregulation, a hypogonadotropic/hypogonadal condition, patient error, environmental conditions that may damage the GnRHa product used, GnRH and luteinizing hormone (LH) receptors polymorphisms, low baseline LH and low endogenous serum LH levels on trigger day as well as low BMI. The induction of an adequate LH surge can be ascertained by an LH urine test 12 h post trigger.

SUMMARY

In most cases, GnRHa trigger elicits effective LH+follicle stimulating hormone surges, resulting in mature, fertilizable oocytes. Clinical awareness to conditions that may predispose to a suboptimal response to the GnRHa trigger may prevent failed oocyte retrial.

Luteal Phase in Assisted Reproductive Technology

Luteal phase (LP) is the period of time beginning shortly after ovulation and ending either with luteolysis, shortly before menstrual bleeding, or with the establishment of pregnancy. During the LP, the corpus luteum (CL) secretes progesterone and some other hormones that are essential to prepare the uterus for implantation and further development of the embryo, the function known as uterine receptivity. LP deficiency (LPD) can occur when the secretory activity of the CL is deficient, but also in cases of normal CL function, where it is caused by a defective endometrial response to normal levels of progesterone. LPD is particularly frequent in treatments using assisted reproductive technology (ART). Controlled ovarian stimulation usually aims to obtain the highest number possible of good-quality oocytes and requires the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogs, to prevent premature ovulation, as well as an ovulation trigger to achieve timed final oocyte maturation. Altogether, these treatments suppress pituitary secretion of luteinizing hormone (LH), required for the formation and early activity of the CL. In addition to problems of endometrial receptivity for embryos, LPD also leads to dysfunction of the local uterine immune system, with an increased risk of embryo rejection, abnormally high uterine contractility, and restriction of uterine blood flow. There are two alternatives of LPD prevention: a direct administration of exogenous progesterone to restore the physiological progesterone serum concentration independently of the CL function, on the one hand, and treatments aimed to stimulate the CL activity so as to increase endogenous progesterone production, on the other hand. In case of pregnancy, some kind of LP support is often needed until the luteal-placental shift occurs. If LPD is caused by defective response of the endometrium and uterine immune cells to normal concentrations of progesterone, a still poorly defined condition, symptomatic treatments are the only available solution currently available.

Is oocyte maturation rate associated with triptorelin dose used for triggering final oocyte maturation in patients at high risk for severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome?

STUDY QUESTION

Are oocyte maturation rates different among 0.1, 0.2 and 0.4 mg triptorelin used for triggering final oocyte maturation in patients at high risk for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) undergoing ICSI?

SUMMARY ANSWER

A dose of 0.1 mg triptorelin results in similar oocyte maturation rates compared to higher doses of 0.2 and 0.4 mg in patients at high risk for OHSS undergoing ICSI.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The GnRH agonist triptorelin is widely used instead of hCG for triggering final oocyte maturation, in order to eliminate the risk of severe OHSS in patients undergoing ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI. However, limited data are currently available regarding its optimal dose use for this purpose in patients at high risk for OHSS.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A retrospective study was performed between November 2015 and July 2017 in 131 infertile patients at high risk for severe OHSS undergoing ovarian stimulation for ICSI. High risk for severe OHSS was defined as the presence of at least 19 follicles ≥11 mm in diameter on the day of triggering final oocyte maturation.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Ovarian stimulation was performed with recombinant FSH and GnRH antagonists. Patients received 0.1 (n = 42), 0.2 (n = 46) or 0.4 mg (n = 43) triptorelin for triggering final oocyte maturation. Hormonal evaluation of FSH, LH, estradiol (E2) and progesterone (PRG) was carried out on the day of triggering final oocyte maturation, 8 and 36 hours post triggering and 3, 5, 7, and 10 days after triptorelin administration. During this period, all patients were assessed for symptoms and signs indicative of severe OHSS development. Primary outcome measure was oocyte maturation rate, defined as the number of metaphase II (MII) oocytes divided by the number of cumulus-oocyte-complexes retrieved per patient. Results are expressed as median (interquartile range).

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

No significant differences in patient baseline characteristics were observed among the 0.1 mg, the 0.2 mg and the 0.4 mg groups. Regarding the primary outcome measure, no differences were observed in oocyte maturation rate among the three groups compared [82.6% (17.8%) versus 83.3% (18.8%) versus 85.1% (17.2%), respectively, P = 0.686].In addition, no significant differences were present among the 0.1 mg, 0.2 mg and 0.4 mg groups, regarding the number of mature (MII) oocytes [21 (13) versus 20 (6) versus 20 (11), respectively; P = 0.582], the number of oocytes retrieved [25.5 (13) versus 24.5 (11) versus 23 (12), respectively; P = 0.452], oocyte retrieval rate [81.0% (17.7%) versus 76.5% (23.5%) versus 75.0% (22.5), respectively; P = 0.088], the number of fertilized (two pronuclei) oocytes [12.5 (9) versus 14.5 (7) versus 14.0 (8), respectively; P = 0.985], fertilization rate [71.7% (22%) versus 77.1% (19.1%) versus 76.6% (23.3%), respectively; P = 0.525] and duration of luteal phase [7 (1) versus 8 (2) versus 7 (1) days, respectively; P = 0.632]. Moreover, no significant differences were present among the three triptorelin groups regarding serum levels of LH, FSH, E2 and PRG at any of the time points assessed following triggering of final oocyte maturation.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

This is a retrospective study, and although there were no differences in the baseline characteristics of the three groups compared, the presence of bias cannot be excluded.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Based on the results of the current study, it appears that triggering final oocyte maturation with a lower (0.1 mg) or a higher dose (0.4 mg) of triptorelin, as compared to the most commonly used dose of 0.2 mg, does not confer any benefit in terms of oocyte maturation rate in patients at high risk for severe OHSS.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

No external funding was obtained for this study. There are no conflicts of interest.

Effects of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) as luteal phase support in intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles: a randomized controlled trial

Background

This paper describes a blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) designed to evaluate the effect of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) administration on outcomes of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in subjects stimulated with the gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol. A total of 268 women who underwent ICSI cycles with GnRH antagonist ovarian stimulation protocol were included in the study. Patients were randomly assigned to the intervention (GnRH-a) and control groups. The intervention group received a single dose injection of triptorelin (0.1 mg) subcutaneously 6 days after oocyte retrieval while the control group received placebo. The rates of chemical and clinical pregnancy were defined as the primary outcome values.

Results

Two hundred forty participants accomplished the study, and their data were analyzed. No significant difference was detected between the chemical pregnancy rates of the intervention and control groups. However, the clinical pregnancy rate was significantly higher in the GnRH-a group than in the placebo group.

Conclusions

The findings of the present study suggest that the GnRH-a support in the luteal phase can result in a significant improvement of pregnancy rates in ICSI cycles following the ovarian stimulation with GnRH antagonist protocol.

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.

Administration effects of single-dose GnRH agonist for luteal support in females undertaking IVF/ICSI cycles: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The aim of the present meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of the addition of single-dose gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) for luteal support on pregnancy outcomes in females partaking in in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. In total, the studies were hand-searched from six electronic databases to compare the pregnancy outcomes between single-dose GnRHa administered as luteal phase support (GnRHa group) and regular luteal support (control group). In the GnRHa group, single-dose GnRH agonist were administered at 5/6 days after IVF/ICSI procedures. In the control group, single-dose GnRH agonist was not added during luteal phase support. Only randomized controlled trials were included. Sensitivity analysis was performed using Revman 5.3 software; the high heterogeneity identified in the present analysis was primarily caused by one study included. Following exclusion of this particular study, the meta-analysis results indicated significantly higher rates of ongoing pregnancy or live birth per transfer (P=0.002), clinical pregnancy per transfer (CPR; P=0.001) and multiple pregnancy per pregnancy (P=0.020) in the GnRHa group compared with those in the control group. Meta-analysis of a subgroup of trials with long-acting GnRH-a ovarian treatment protocols indicated that the rate of ongoing pregnancy or live birth (P=0.080), CPR (P=0.090) and multiple pregnancy per pregnancy (P=0.140) were not significantly different between the two groups. However, the results from trials that had used a multi-dose GnRH antagonist ovarian treatment protocol indicated a significantly higher ongoing pregnancy or live birth rate per transfer (P=0.010), CPR per transfer (P<0.0001) and multiple pregnancy rate per pregnancy (P=0.003) compared with those in the control group. The present results suggested that administration of single-dose GnRH agonist in the luteal phase may be an ideal choice for patients undergoing IVF/ICSI therapy.

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).

Association between body mass index and oocyte maturation in patients triggered with GnRH agonist who are at high risk for severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: an observational cohort study

RESEARCH QUESTION

Is body-mass index (BMI) associated with oocyte maturation in women at high risk for developing severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) who are triggered with gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist?

DESIGN

Prospective observational cohort study. A total of 113 patients at high risk for severe OHSS (presence of at least 19 follicles ≥11 mm) pre-treated with gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists and recombinant FSH were administered 0.2 mg triptorelin to trigger final oocyte maturation. Patients were classified in two groups depending on their BMI: ΒΜΙ less than 25 kg/m² (n = 72) and ΒΜΙ 25 kg/m² or over (n = 41). Baseline, ovarian stimulation and embryological characteristics, as well as luteal-phase hormone profiles, were compared in patients classified into the two BMI groups. The main outcome measure was the number of mature oocytes.

RESULTS

A significantly higher number of mature (metaphase II) oocytes (19 [18-21] versus 16 [13-20], P = 0.029) was present in women with BMI less than 25 kg/m² compared with those with BMI 25 kg/m² or greater. The number of retrieved oocytes, the number of fertilized oocytes, oocyte retrieval, maturation and fertilization rates were similar in the two groups. A significantly higher dose of recombinant FSH was required for patients with BMI 25 kg/m² or greater compared with patients with BMI less than 25 kg/m² (1875 [1650-2150] IU versus 1650 [1600-1750] IU, P = 0.003) and the two groups displayed different luteal phase hormonal profiles.

CONCLUSIONS

Among women at high risk for developing severe OHSS who are triggered with a standard dose (0.2 mg) of the GnRH agonist triptorelin, women with BMI 25 kg/m² or greater had significantly fewer mature oocytes, required a higher total dose of recombinant FSH compared with women with BMI less than 25 kg/m².

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.

Impact of Mid-Luteal Phase GnRH Agonist Administration on Reproductive Outcomes in GnRH Agonist-Triggered Cycles: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To explore whether the addition of a mid-luteal bolus of GnRH agonist (GnRHa) improves the implantation rate (IR) in in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles.

DESIGN

A randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Private IVF center.

PATIENTS

328 IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients were triggered with GnRHa and received 1,500 IU HCG on the day of oocyte pick-up (OPU) in addition to a standard luteal phase support (LPS).

INTERVENTIONS

In addition, the study group received a bolus of GnRHa 6 days after OPU, whereas the control group did not.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Implantation rate.

SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Ongoing pregnancy (OP) and live birth (LB) rates.

RESULTS

Although serum concentrations of FSH, LH, E2, and P on day OPU + 7 were significantly higher in the study group compared to the control group, the IR was not statistically different between the treatment group (27%) and the control group (23%) [odds ratio (OR) 1.2 (95% CI 0.9-1.7), P < 0.27]. Similarly, the OP rate was 37% in the treatment group and 31% in the control group [OR 1.3 (95% CI 0.8-2.0), P < 0.23]. The LB rate was 36% in the treatment group and 31% in the control group [OR: 1.3 (95% CI 0.8-2.0), P < 0.27].

CONCLUSION

Although a trend toward a higher IR and pregnancy rate was observed in the treatment group, this difference was not statistically significant. However, the absolute risk difference of 5% found for LB is clinically relevant, warranting further investigation.

NCT

02053779.

Impact of Mid-Luteal Phase GnRH Agonist Administration on Reproductive Outcomes in GnRH Agonist-Triggered Cycles: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To explore whether the addition of a mid-luteal bolus of GnRH agonist (GnRHa) improves the implantation rate (IR) in in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles.

DESIGN

A randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Private IVF center.

PATIENTS

328 IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients were triggered with GnRHa and received 1,500 IU HCG on the day of oocyte pick-up (OPU) in addition to a standard luteal phase support (LPS).

INTERVENTIONS

In addition, the study group received a bolus of GnRHa 6 days after OPU, whereas the control group did not.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Implantation rate.

SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Ongoing pregnancy (OP) and live birth (LB) rates.

RESULTS

Although serum concentrations of FSH, LH, E2, and P on day OPU + 7 were significantly higher in the study group compared to the control group, the IR was not statistically different between the treatment group (27%) and the control group (23%) [odds ratio (OR) 1.2 (95% CI 0.9-1.7), P < 0.27]. Similarly, the OP rate was 37% in the treatment group and 31% in the control group [OR 1.3 (95% CI 0.8-2.0), P < 0.23]. The LB rate was 36% in the treatment group and 31% in the control group [OR: 1.3 (95% CI 0.8-2.0), P < 0.27].

CONCLUSION

Although a trend toward a higher IR and pregnancy rate was observed in the treatment group, this difference was not statistically significant. However, the absolute risk difference of 5% found for LB is clinically relevant, warranting further investigation.

NCT

02053779.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist trigger in oocyte donors co-treated with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist: a dose-finding study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the optimal GnRH agonist dose for triggering of oocyte maturation in oocyte donors.

DESIGN

Single-center, randomized, parallel, investigator-blinded trial.

SETTING

IVFMD, My Duc Hospital, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.

PATIENT(S)

One hundred sixty-five oocyte donors (aged 18-35 years, body mass index [BMI] <28 kg/m(2), antimüllerian hormone level >1.25 ng/mL, and antral follicle count ≥6).

INTERVENTION(S)

Ovulation trigger with 0.2, 0.3, or 0.4 mg triptorelin in a GnRH antagonist cycle.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

The primary end point was number of metaphase II oocytes. Secondary end points were fertilization and cleavage rates, number of embryos and top-quality embryos, steroid levels, ovarian volume, and ongoing pregnancy rate (PR) in recipients.

RESULT(S)

There were no significant differences between the triptorelin 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4 mg trigger groups with respect to number of metaphase II oocytes (16.0 ± 8.5, 15.9 ± 7.8, and 14.7 ± 8.4, respectively), embryos (13.2 ± 7.8, 11.7 ± 6.9, 11.8 ± 7.0), and number of top-quality embryos (3.8 ± 2.9, 3.6 ± 3.0, 4.1 ± 3.0). Luteinizing hormone levels at 24 hours and 36 hours after trigger was significantly higher with triptorelin 0.4 mg versus 0.2 mg and 0.3 mg (9.8 ± 7.1 IU/L vs. 7.3 ± 4.1 IU/L and 7.2 ± 3.7 IU/L, respectively; 4.6 ± 3.2 IU/L vs. 3.2 ± 2.3 IU/L and 3.3 ± 2.1 IU/L, respectively. Progesterone level at oocyte pick-up +6 days was significantly higher in the 0.4-mg group (2.2 ± 3.7 ng/ml) versus 0.2 mg (1.1 ± 1.0 ng/ml) and 0.3 mg (1.2 ± 1.6 ng/ml). One patient developed early-onset severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS).

CONCLUSION(S)

No significant differences between triptorelin doses of 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4 mg used for ovulation trigger in oocyte donors were seen with regard to the number of mature oocytes and top-quality embryos.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02208986.

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.