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

A 10-year follow-up on the practice of luteal phase support using worldwide web-based surveys

BACKGROUND

It has been demonstrated that luteal phase support (LPS) is crucial in filling the gap between the disappearance of exogenously administered hCG for ovulation triggering and the initiation of secretion of endogenous hCG from the implanting conceptus. LPS has a pivotal role of in establishing and maintaining in vitro fertilization (IVF) pregnancies. Over the last decade, a plethora of studies bringing new information on many aspects of LPS have been published. Due to lack of consent between researchers and a dearth of robust evidence-based guidelines, we wanted to make the leap from the bench to the bedside, what are the common LPS practices in fresh IVF cycles compared to current evidence and guidelines? How has expert opinion changed over 10 years in light of recent literature?

METHODS

Over a decade (2009-2019), we conducted 4 web-based surveys on a large IVF-specialist website on common LPS practices and controversies. The self-report, multiple-choice surveys quantified results by annual IVF cycles.

RESULTS

On average, 303 IVF units responded to each survey, representing, on average, 231,000 annual IVF cycles. Most respondents in 2019 initiated LPS on the day of, or the day after egg collection (48.7 % and 36.3 %, respectively). In 2018, 72 % of respondents administered LPS for 8-10 gestational weeks, while in 2019, 65 % continued LPS until 10-12 weeks. Vaginal progesterone is the predominant delivery route; its utilization rose from 64 % of cycles in 2009 to 74.1 % in 2019. Oral P use has remained negligible; a slight increase to 2.9 % in 2019 likely reflects dydrogesterone's introduction into practice. E2 and GnRH agonists are rarely used for LPS, as is hCG alone, limited by its associated risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS).

CONCLUSIONS

Our Assisted reproductive technology (ART)-community survey series gave us insights into physician views on using progesterone for LPS. Despite extensive research and numerous publications, evidence quality and recommendation levels are surprisingly low for most topics. Clinical guidelines use mostly low-quality evidence. There is no single accepted LPS protocol. Our study highlights the gaps between science and practice and the need for further LPS research, with an emphasis on treatment individualization.

When Can We Safely Stop Luteal Phase Support in Fresh IVF Cycles? A Literature Review

There is no consensus on the optimal duration of luteal phase support (LPS) in fresh IVF cycles. Although some clinicians withdraw LPS on the day of a positive pregnancy test, most clinicians continue its administration at least up to the 8th week of gestation. In this literature review, we included several randomized clinical trials comparing early and late cessation of LPS. Most studies have found no benefit in extended administration. These studies, however, were limited by their small sample size and selection bias. Until now, only a few attempts have been made to indicate when LPS can be safely stopped based on individual patient characteristics. In conclusion, the quality and quantity of the evidence regarding LPS duration in fresh IVF cycles is currently insufficient to justify early cessation in all patients. Individualization of LPS should receive high priority in future research.

Short versus extended progesterone supplementation for luteal phase support in fresh IVF cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This review and meta-analysis aim to assess the effect of prolonged progesterone support on pregnancy outcomes in women undergoing fresh embryo transfer after IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Two independent authors searched Embase, MEDLINE and grey literature from inception to January 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCT) of prolonged progesterone support versus early cessation. Risk of bias was assessed. Outcome measures were live birth, miscarriage and ongoing pregnancy rate. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018088605). Seven trials involving 1627 participants were included: three reported live birth rate (672/830), seven the miscarriage rate (178/1627) and seven the ongoing pregnancy rate (1351/1627). Clinical outcomes were similar between early progesterone cessation versus progesterone continuation: live birth rate (risk ratio [RR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-1.00), miscarriage rate (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.69-1.20) and ongoing pregnancy rate (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91-1.05). Ongoing pregnancy rates were similar when analyses were restricted to those with cessation of progesterone on the day of a positive human chorionic gonadotrophin (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.83-1.06). This meta-analysis suggests that prolonged progesterone support may be unnecessary after fresh embryo transfer. Further larger RCT would be useful to corroborate and lead to standardized duration of progesterone luteal phase support across IVF/ICSI centres.

Progesterone concentrations and dosage with frozen embryo transfers - What's best?

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of consensus on the optimal dose and form of progesterone supplementation during frozen-thawed embryo transfer with hormone replacement therapy.

AIMS

We aim to identify the serum progesterone concentration on day 16 most likely to result in positive pregnancy outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We undertook a retrospective study of 4582 women who underwent frozen embryo transfer with hormone replacement therapy, or natural frozen embryo transfer, over 14 years at a multi-site private in vitro fertilisation clinic. Embryos were 3-5 days of age at time of transfer. We extracted data on serum progesterone concentrations and outcomes, as well as dose and form of progesterone supplementation, from patient and pharmacy records.

RESULTS

Increased live birth rates for frozen embryo transfer with hormone replacement therapy were seen with day 16 serum progesterone concentrations >50 nmol/L (26.4% vs 11.3% for <50 nmol/L; adjusted odds ratio (OR) 3.14 (95% CI 2.21-4.48)). Similarly, a decreased pregnancy loss rate was seen in this group (14.3% vs 32.6% for ≤50 nmol/L; adjusted OR 0.26 (95% CI 0.12-0.58)). There was a positive correlation between live births and the number of progesterone doses per day (r = 0.119, P = 0.026) and day 16 progesterone concentrations (r = 0.128, P = 0.011).

CONCLUSION

Improved pregnancy outcomes are seen with day 16 serum progesterone concentrations >50 nmol/L. There is a statistically significant correlation between live births, number of progesterone doses per day and day 16 serum progesterone concentrations in this study.

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.

Duration of luteal support after IVF is important, so why is there no consistency in practice? The results of a dynamic survey of practice in the United Kingdom

Luteal support is considered as an essential component of IVF treatment following ovarian stimulation and embryo transfer. Several studies have consistently demonstrated a benefit of luteal support compared with no treatment and whilst a number of preparations are available, no product has been demonstrated as superior. There is an emerging body of evidence which suggests that extension of luteal support beyond biochemical pregnancy does not confer a benefit in terms of successful pregnancy outcome. We performed two surveys separated by 5 years of practice evolution, with the latter reporting on the use of luteal support in all IVF clinics in the UK. All clinics reported utilising luteal support with the majority favouring the use of Cyclogest 400 mg twice daily. In contrast, there was no consensus on the optimal duration of luteal support. Whilst 24% of clinics withdrew luteal support at biochemical confirmation of pregnancy, 40% continued treatment until 12 weeks gestation. Several clinics even extended luteal support beyond 12 weeks gestation. We observed no difference in practice based on the size of the IVF unit or treatment funding source. Although there was some change in practice between surveys in many clinics, there was no uniformity in the direction of change.