Comparison of Pregnancy Outcomes of Progesterone or Progesterone + Estradiol for Luteal Phase Support in ICSI-ET Cycles

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.

Peri-implantation estradiol level has no effect on pregnancy outcome in vitro fertilization- embryo transfer

Background

The necessity of monitoring luteal endocrine functions in in vitro fertilization- embryo transfer (IVF-ET) remains uncertain. Specifically, the significance of luteal phase estradiol (E2) levels is a matter of debate in current literature.

Objective

To assess the impact of luteal phase (day 11 after HCG trigger) estradiol levels on IVF-ET outcomes.

Design

Twelve thousand five hundred and thirty-five (n = 12,535) IVF-ET cycles performed in our center between 2015 and 2021 were divided into 5 groups based on the middle and late luteal phase serum E2 (MllPSE2) level percentiles as follows: Group A < 50 pg/mL (N=500), group B 50 pg/mL≤E2<150 pg/mL (N=2545), group C 150 pg/mL≤E2<250 pg/mL (N=1327), group D 250 pg/mL≤E2<500 pg/mL (N=925), group E E2≥500 pg/mL (n=668). The clinical pregnancy rates, abortion rates, and live birth rates of each group were compared. Binary logistic regression analysis was carried out to assess the potential impact of MllPSE2 on the live birth rate (LBR).

Results

No significant differences were found in various parameters when comparing the five groups. The level of MllPSE2 showed no significant difference between the pregnant group and the non-pregnant group. The binary logistic regression analysis model demonstrated that MllPSE2 was not significantly related to LBR.

Conclusion

The influence of E2 during the peri-implantation period (day 11) on clinical outcome in IVF-ET is not affected, even if E2<50 pg/mL. It is speculated that ovarian-derived E2 in MllPSE2 is not deemed necessary for endometrial receptivity. Although caution is warranted due to the retrospective nature of the analysis and the potential for unmeasured confounding, it is argued that the need for luteal E2 monitoring in IVF-ET may be of questionable value.

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

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

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

Objective:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusions:

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

Body symmetry and reproductive hormone levels in women

Fluctuating asymmetry (FA), a morphological marker of developmental stability, may be related to an individual's biological condition, e.g., health or fertility. The aim of this study was to test if the level of a woman's FA was related to her fertility and reproductive potential as measured by reproductive hormone levels. Fifty-three healthy, non-pregnant, naturally cycling women (mean age = 23.42, SD = 1.85 years), participated in the study, conducted in Wrocław (Poland) in May 2015. Early-follicular phase serum levels of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), and estradiol (E2) were measured. FA was calculated based on anthropometric measures of six bilateral body traits, and the composite FA index was used in statistical analyses. No relationship was observed between FA and the levels of FSH, LH, and AMH (p > .05), controlled for potential confounders. However, the level of E2 was positively correlated with FA (p < .05). Thus, in young women, FA was not related to hormones levels related to ovarian reserve, but more symmetrical women had lower E2 levels. As FA is an index of developmental stability, environmental, and genetic stress, the results of the study confirm previous research suggesting that developmental conditions may be related to women's endogenous estrogen levels.

Plasmatic estradiol concentration in the mid-luteal phase is a good prognostic factor for clinical and ongoing pregnancies, during stimulated cycles of in vitro fertilization

Objective

To evaluate the predictive efficiency of serum estradiol (E₂) concentration in the mid-luteal phase regarding chemical, clinical, and ongoing pregnancies, in patients subjected to IVF/ICSI with fresh embryo transfer.

Methods

One hundred and forty-three patients undergoing IVF/ICSI met all the inclusion criteria for the present study. Most of the patients used antagonists, final maturation was achieved with recombinant chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG), and embryo transfer took place on days 3 to 5, but mostly on day 4. The luteal phase was supplemented with estradiol valerate 6 mg/day and vaginal micronized progesterone 600 mg/day. There was no exclusion of patients in the embryo transfer group due to age or ovarian reserve. All patients with estradiol and chorionic gonadotrophin (βHCG) dosage on the day of transfer, day 7, were included. We assessed the following variables, initially regarding age: number of eggs collected, formed embryos, embryos transferred, day of transfer, transfer type, estradiol and chorionic gonadotropin. Next, we evaluated these elements at three different ranges of estradiol concentrations (<200 pg/ml, 200-500 pg/ml, and >500 pg/ml), comparing these parameters in pregnant (P) and non-pregnant (NP) patients.

Results

Data analysis by age group in P and NP patients showed significant differences in the mean values of the variables E₂ and βHCG, TD7. Mean serum estradiol levels in P and NP in the three age groups were: <35years, 835/417 p=0.0006, 35-39 years 833/434 p=0.0118, >39 years, 841/394 p=0.0012. There was also a significant difference in pregnancy rates in the group >500 pg/ml of estradiol concentration (63.4%, p=0.0096). The likelihood of chemical and clinical abortions for the estradiol ranges were: 38.46%, involving the two first ranges versus 15.15% for a concentration >500 pg/ml, p=0.0412 and 5.26% for a concentration >900 pg/ml, p=0.0105. The Pearson correlation coefficient for HCG and estradiol was r = 0.5108.

Conclusion

This study showed the prognostic value of E₂ in the mid-luteal phase (TD7) for chemical, clinical, and ongoing pregnancies, and its concentration suggested that there is a moderately positive correlation with βHCG levels.

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

In vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles are associated with a defective luteal phase. Although progesterone supplementation to treat this problem is standard practice, estrogen addition is debatable. Our aim was to compare pregnancy outcomes in 220 patients undergoing antagonist intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles protocol. The patients were randomly assigned into two equal groups to receive either vaginal progesterone alone (90 mg once daily) starting on the day of oocyte retrieval for up to 12 weeks if pregnancy occurred or estradiol addition (2 mg twice daily) starting on the same day and continuing up to seven weeks (foetal viability scan). Primary outcomes were pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy rates per embryo transfer. Secondary outcomes were implantation and early pregnancy loss rates. Pregnancy rates showed no significant difference between group 1 (39.09%) and 2 (43.63%) (p value = 0.3). Similarly, both groups were comparable regarding ongoing pregnancy rate (32.7% group 1 and 36.3% group 2, p value = 0.1). Implantation rates showed no difference between group 1 (19.25%) and group 2 (23.44%) (p value = 0.2). Early pregnancy loss rates were comparable, with 6.3% and 7.2% in groups 1 and 2, respectively, (p value = 0.4). In conclusion, the addition of 4 mg estrogen daily to progesterone for luteal support in antagonist ICSI cycles is not beneficial for pregnancy outcome.

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.

Estrogen supplementation to progesterone as luteal phase support in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization: systematic review and meta-analysis

Meta-analyses have found conflicting results with respect to the use of progesterone or progesterone plus estrogen as luteal phase support for in vitro fertilization (IVF) protocols involving gonadotropins and/or gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs. The aim of the present study was to perform an updated meta-analysis on the efficacy of progesterone versus progesterone plus estrogen as luteal phase support. We searched the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases (up to March 18, 2014). The search terms were (estrogen OR estradiol OR oestradiol) AND (progesterone) AND (IVF OR in vitro fertilization) AND (randomized OR prospective). We did not limit the form of estrogen and included subjects who contributed more than 1 cycle to a study. The primary outcome was clinical pregnancy rate. Secondary outcomes were ongoing pregnancy rate, fertilization rate, implantation rate, and miscarriage rate. A total of 11 articles were included in the present analysis, with variable numbers of studies assessing each outcome measure. Results of statistical analyses indicated that progesterone plus estrogen treatment was more likely to result in clinical pregnancy than progesterone alone (pooled odds ratio 1.617, 95% confidence interval 1.059-2.471; P = 0.026). No significant difference between the 2 treatment regimens was found for the other outcome measures. Progesterone plus estrogen for luteal phase support is associated with a higher clinical pregnancy rate than progesterone alone in women undergoing IVF, but other outcomes such as ongoing pregnancy rate, fertilization rate, implantation rate, and miscarriage rate are the same for both treatments.

Meta-analysis of estradiol for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether the addition of E(2) for luteal phase support (LPS) in IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) could improve the outcome of clinical pregnancy.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

SETTING

University hospital center.

PATIENT(S)

Women underwent IVF or ICSI using the GnRH agonist or GnRH antagonist protocol.

INTERVENTION(S)

Progesterone alone or combined with E(2) for LPS.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Clinical pregnancy rate per patient (CPR/PA), clinical pregnancy rate per ET, implantation rate, ongoing pregnancy rate per patient, clinical abortion rate, and ectopic pregnancy rate.

RESULT(S)

Fifteen relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified that included a total of 2,406 patients. There was no statistical difference between E(2) + P group and P-only group regarding the primary outcome of CPR/PA for different routes of administration of E(2) (oral, vaginal, and transdermal) or other relevant outcome measures. No significant effect was observed for different daily doses of E(2) (6, 4, and 2 mg), even through oral medication in CPR/PA.

CONCLUSION(S)

The best available evidence suggests that E(2) addition during the luteal phase does not improve IVF/ICSI outcomes through oral medication, even with different daily doses. Furthermore, RCTs that study other administration routes are needed.

Assisted reproductive techniques

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

Oral oestradiol supplementation as luteal support in IVF/ICSI cycles: a prospective, randomized controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To explore whether oral oestradiol (E2) supplementation (6 mg) in the luteal phase is beneficial to the outcome of patients undergoing gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) long protocol in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, controlled study at the IVF Clinic, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital. In total, 402 patients with an indication for IVF or ICSI were recruited. Patients were prospectively randomized to receive either progesterone injection plus oral E2 supplementation (Group A, n=202) or progesterone injection alone (Group B, n=200) as luteal support after oocyte retrieval. The main outcome measure was the clinical pregnancy rate.

RESULTS

No significant difference in the clinical pregnancy rate or miscarriage rate was observed between Group A and Group B (50.9% vs 58.0%, 14.6% vs 11.2%; p>0.05). In different age subgroups (≤35 years and >35 years) all measurements were comparable in patients with or without E2 supplementation, as well as in subgroups with different E2 levels on the day of human chorionic gonadotrophin injection (E2≥3000 pg/ml and E2<3000 pg/ml).

CONCLUSION

Adding E2 as luteal support did not increase the clinical pregnancy rate or reduce the miscarriage rate. Routine use of a combination of E2 and progesterone as luteal support in GnRHa long protocol IVF/ICSI cycles is not recommended.

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Improvement in embryo quality and pregnancy rates by using autologous cumulus body during icsi cycles

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the addition of intact cumulus cell mass (ICM) to both embryo culture (EC) and embryo transfer (ET) improves embryo quality and pregnancy rates.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 133 infertile couples were included, of which 67 received ICM (study group) and 66 did not (control group). The ICM was obtained from a simple cutting of the cumulus corona oocyte complex (CCOC). A case control study design was used.

RESULTS

The clinical characteristics of the two groups before the embryo culturing step were similar with respect to age, estradiol level on the day of hCG and endometrial thickness on the day of embryo transfer (p>0.05). On the other hand study group with ICM had higher number of high quality embryos (3.1±1.4 vs 2.4±1.1, p=0.03), higher implantation rate (53.7% vs 34.8%, p=0.02) and higher ultrasound confirmation of gestational sac and fetal heart beat as ongoing pregnancy rates (44.7% vs 27.2%, p=0.04) compared to the control group without ICM.

CONCLUSION

Addition of ICM improves embryo quality and pregnancy rates. This is a cost-and time-effective simple procedure that shows great promise for the improvement of infertility treatment.

Luteal support: progestogens for pregnancy protection

Following ovulation, the granulosa cells undergo luteinization and form part of the corpus luteum; this then secretes progesterone that causes secretory transformation of the endometrium so that implantation can occur. The ideal time for implantation is 6-10 days after the luteinizing hormone (LH) surge; implantation occurring outside this optimal window is associated with a higher likelihood of miscarriage. Before the placenta takes over progesterone production, the progesterone produced by the corpus luteum also provides the necessary support to early pregnancy. A defect in corpus luteum function is not only associated with implantation failure but also with miscarriage. In assisted reproduction, both the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues to prevent the LH surge and aspiration of granulosa cells during the oocyte retrieval may impair the ability of the corpus luteum to produce sufficient progesterone. This may be treated effectively with progestational agents such as progesterone or dydrogesterone, which have a very similar pharmacological profile. Studies indicate that an estrogen may be given during the luteal phase to optimise the estrogen:progestogen ratio to facilitate implantation, although the available evidence is inconsistent in its strength for this hypothesis. In addition to assisted reproduction, progestational agents have shown beneficial effects in the management of patients with recurrent spontaneous miscarriage of unknown cause. In conclusion, despite the wide-spread use and many years of clinical experience, the amount of data from well-controlled clinical trials is currently limited. Further studies are therefore required to establish the optimal treatment situation and type and dose of progestational agent.

The effect of luteal phase support protocol on cycle outcome and luteal phase hormone profile in long agonist protocol intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To study the effect of luteal phase support protocol on cycle outcome and luteal phase hormone profile, in long agonist protocol intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles.

DESIGN

Prospective randomized trial.

SETTING

Private infertility center.

PATIENT(S)

Two hundred seventy-four women undergoing first ICSI cycles were randomized after ovum pickup into three groups of luteal support.

INTERVENTION(S)

Group I received IM P (P(4)) only, group II received P(4) + oral E(2) valerate, group III received P(4) + hCG.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Pregnancy rate (PR), implantation rate, rates of multiple pregnancy and miscarriage, and midluteal serum E(2) and P(4), and midluteal E(2):P(4) ratio.

RESULT(S)

The PR and implantation rates were significantly higher in group II compared to group I and the miscarriage rate was significantly lower in group II compared with group I. Midluteal E(2) was significantly higher in group II compared with group I. The decline in E(2) after ovum pickup was lowest in group II, highest in group I. The midluteal E(2):P(4) ratio was significantly higher in group II compared with groups I and III.

CONCLUSION(S)

The E(2) luteal phase supplementation in long GnRH-agonist (GnRH-a) protocol ICSI cycles resulted in better cycle outcome and better luteal phase hormone profile.

Luteal support for IVF/ICSI cycles with Crinone 8% (90 mg) twice daily results in higher pregnancy rates than with intramuscular progesterone

BACKGROUND

The use of progesterone for luteal support has been demonstrated to be beneficial in assisted reproductive cycles, yet the optimal route of progesterone administration has still not been established. This article is a retrospective study in a tertiary reproductive medical unit to compare luteal progesterone supplementation with vaginal gel or intramuscular progesterone.

METHODS

A total of 144 in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles were analyzed, 67 cycles using vaginal gel 90 mg twice daily and 77 cycles using intramuscular progesterone 50 mg daily as luteal support.

RESULTS

Both groups had similar mean age, cause of infertility, baseline hormone levels, dosage of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone, number of retrieved and fertilized oocytes, and number of transferred embryos. The vaginal gel group had significantly lower mid-luteal serum progesterone levels but higher implantation rate (32.5% vs. 18.5%, p = 0.001) and ongoing pregnancy rate (55.2% vs. 32.5%, p = 0.006). Within each group, mid-luteal serum progesterone levels between pregnant or non-pregnant patients were comparable. For patients with serum estradiol levels on day of human chorionic gonadotropin greater than 5,000 pg/mL, vaginal gel still resulted in better ongoing pregnancy and implantation rates.

CONCLUSION

The use of vaginal progesterone gel twice daily for luteal support results in better pregnancy outcomes than intramuscular progesterone. A high local progesterone effect from vaginal gel might improve endometrial receptivity under extraordinarily high serum estradiol levels.

Matched-samples comparison of intramuscular versus vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate vaginal compared to intramuscular (IM) progesterone supplementation for luteal phase support after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET).

DESIGN

Retrospective matched-samples comparative study.

SETTING

Private infertility center.

PATIENTS(S)

Two hundred forty patients undergoing IVF-ET.

INTERVENTION(S)

Patients received either vaginal progesterone supplementation in the form of Endometrin 100 mg twice a day (n = 12), Endometrin 100 mg three times a day (n = 11), or Crinone 8% gel 90 mg every day (n = 17), or 50 mg every day IM progesterone in oil (n = 200).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Clinical intrauterine pregnancy rates, pregnancy loss, and live birth rates.

RESULT(S)

Among patients using vaginal progesterone, there were no statistically significant differences in patient characteristics and clinical outcomes, regardless of the type of vaginal progesterone used. There were no differences in outcomes between the vaginal and IM progesterone treatment groups. There were 20 pregnancies (50.0%) among patients treated with vaginal progesterone and 103 pregnancies (51.5%) among matched IM progesterone patients. The live birth rates were 47% in the IM versus 47.5% in the vaginal progesterone groups. There were no statistically significant differences in miscarriage rates between groups.

CONCLUSION(S)

There are no significant differences in treatment outcomes between vaginal and IM progesterone supplementation, yielding similar clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and live birth rates.

The effect of luteal phase vaginal estradiol supplementation on the success of in vitro fertilization treatment: a prospective randomized study

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the use of luteal phase vaginal E(2) supplementation improves clinical pregnancy rates in patients undergoing IVF treatment.

DESIGN

Prospective randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

University-based tertiary fertility center.

PATIENT(S)

One hundred sixty-six patients undergoing their first cycle of IVF treatment.

INTERVENTION(S)

Patients underwent three different protocols for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for IVF treatment with long GnRH agonist suppression, use of GnRH antagonist, or a microdose GnRH agonist protocol. Luteal phase support was in the form of IM P. Patients randomized into the study group (n = 84) received E(2) supplementation in the form of vaginal estrace 2 mg twice a day starting on the day of ET. Patients randomized to the control group (n = 82) received no E(2) supplementation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Clinical pregnancy rates.

RESULT(S)

There were no significant differences in the implantation (56/210 [26.7%] vs. 64/203 [31.5%]), clinical pregnancy (42/84 [50%] vs. 52/82 [63.4%]), and ongoing pregnancy rates (40/84 [47.6%] vs. 46/82 [56.1%]) between the study and control groups, respectively. In the subgroup of patients who used the long GnRH agonist suppression protocol, there was a lower clinical pregnancy rate in the study group compared with the control group (27/55 [49.1%] vs. 42/59 [71.2%]). There were, however, no differences in clinical pregnancy rates between the two groups in patients who used either the GnRH antagonist or microdose GnRH agonist protocols.

CONCLUSION(S)

The addition of vaginal E(2) supplementation to routine P supplementation for luteal support does not improve the probability of conception after IVF treatment.

Luteal estrogen supplementation in stimulated cycles may improve the pregnancy rate in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection-embryo transfer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of estradiol addition to progesterone supplementation during the luteal phase on pregnancy and implantation rates in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection-embryo transfer (IVF/ICSI-ET) cycles.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized study, carried out in an IVF unit of a university hospital, we studied patients who were undergoing IVF/ICSI with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation using a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist/human recombinant gonadotropin long protocol. The main outcome measures were the pregnancy and implantation rates measured in the two groups.

RESULTS

Our results suggest higher pregnancy and implantation rates in IVF/ICSI-ET cycles that were supplemented with estradiol in the luteal phase.

CONCLUSIONS

Estradiol supplementation during the luteal phase in women undergoing IVF/ICSI-ET has a beneficial effect on the outcome without (at least, as seems from this study) having any adverse effects.

Progesterone supplementation to prevent recurrent miscarriage and to reduce implantation failure in assisted reproduction cycles

Implantation failure has been questioned for many cases of recurrent miscarriage and unsuccessful assisted reproduction. The exact cause of implantation failure is not known, but luteal phase defect is encountered in many of these cases. Consequently, women with recurrent miscarriages have been treated with progesterone supplementation with various degrees of success, and a recent meta-analysis has shown trends for improved live birth rates in those women. Progesterone probably acts as an immunological suppressant blocking T-helper (Th)1 activity and inducing release of Th2 cytokines. Numerous studies have confirmed that ovarian stimulation used in assisted reproduction is associated with luteal phase insufficiency, even when gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists are used. In those patients, advanced endometrial histological maturity and a decrease in the concentration of cytoplasmic progesterone receptors are observed. Progesterone supplementation results in a trend towards improved ongoing and clinical pregnancy rates, except in patients treated with human menopausal gonadotrophin-only regimens, in whom ongoing pregnancy rates increase significantly. More randomized controlled trials are needed to increase the power of the currently available meta-analyses to further evaluate progesterone supplementation in both conditions.

Luteal phase support in assisted reproductive technology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to discuss luteal support in assisted reproduction and to provide an evidence-based overview of the current options available.

RECENT FINDINGS

The luteal phase has been found to be defective in virtually all of the stimulation protocols used for in-vitro fertilization. Common mechanisms such as supraphysiological levels of estradiol, decreased output of luteinizing hormone, inhibition of the corpus luteum and asynchronization of estradiol and progesterone may be involved in insufficient function of the corpus luteum in assisted reproductive technology.

SUMMARY

Gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist undoubtedly provides benefits in stimulated cycles, however it also has adverse effects, inhibition of the corpus luteum together with supraphysiological hormonal profiles finally leading to luteal phase defects. Luteal phase support with human chorionic gonadotropin or progesterone after assisted reproduction results in increased pregnancy rates. The role of luteal phase support in these cycles has also been recently elucidated. Use of human chorionic gonadotropin for luteal phase support is associated with a marked increase in the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, therefore progesterone is the preferred choice. Data on the benefits of estrogen supplementation are conflicting. Among the routes of progesterone administration, reductions in pregnancy rates are noted on oral administration. In spite of a lack of statistical significance, the intramuscular route seems to be more beneficial than the vaginal route when considering rates of ongoing pregnancy and live birth. Further clarification is needed on the ideal dose, the optimal route and the duration of progesterone administration in assisted reproduction.