Subcutaneous Progesterone Is Effective and Safe for Luteal Phase Support in IVF: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of the Phase III Trials

Comparison of the efficacy of subcutaneous versus vaginal progesterone using a rescue protocol in vitrified blastocyst transfer cycles

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does administration of subcutaneous (s.c.) progesterone support ongoing pregnancy rates (OPR) similar to vaginal progesterone using a rescue protocol in hormone replacement therapy frozen embryo transfer cycles?

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study. Two sequential cohorts - vaginal progesterone gel (December 2019-October 2021; n=474) and s.c. progesterone (November 2021-November 2022; n=249) -were compared. Following oestrogen priming, s.c. progesterone 25 mg twice daily (b.d.) or vaginal progesterone gel 90 mg b.d. was administered. Serum progesterone was measured 1 day prior to warmed blastocyst transfer (i.e. day 5 of progesterone administration). In patients with serum progesterone concentrations <8.75 ng/ml, additional s.c. progesterone (rescue protocol; 25 mg) was provided.

RESULTS

In the vaginal progesterone gel group, 15.8% of patients had serum progesterone <8.75 ng/ml and received the rescue protocol, whereas no patients in the s.c. progesterone group received the rescue protocol. OPR, along with positive pregnancy and clinical pregnancy rates, were comparable between the s.c. progesterone group without the rescue protocol and the vaginal progesterone gel group with the rescue protocol. After the rescue protocol, the route of progesterone administration was not a significant predictor of ongoing pregnancy. The impact of different serum progesterone concentrations on reproductive outcomes was evaluated by percentile (<10th, 10-49th, 50-90th and >90th percentiles), taking the >90th percentile as the reference subgroup. In both the vaginal progesterone gel group and the s.c. progesterone group, all serum progesterone percentile subgroups had similar OPR.

CONCLUSIONS

Subcutaneous progesterone 25 mg b.d. secures serum progesterone >8.75 ng/ml, whereas additional exogenous progesterone (rescue protocol) was needed in 15.8% of patients who received vaginal progesterone. The s.c. and vaginal progesterone routes, with the rescue protocol if needed, yield comparable OPR.

Supplementary dydrogesterone is beneficial as luteal phase support in artificial frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles compared to micronized progesterone alone

Introduction

The number of frozen embryo transfers increased substantially in recent years. To increase the chances of implantation, endometrial receptivity and embryo competency must be synchronized. Maturation of the endometrium is facilitated by sequential administration of estrogens, followed by administration of progesterone prior to embryo transfer. The use of progesterone is crucial for pregnancy outcomes. This study compares the reproductive outcomes and tolerability of five different regimens of hormonal luteal phase support in artificial frozen embryo transfer cycles, with the objective of determining the best progesterone luteal phase support in this context.

Design

This is a single-center retrospective cohort study of all women undergoing frozen embryo transfers between 2013 and 2019. After sufficient endometrial thickness was achieved by estradiol, luteal phase support was initiated. The following five different progesterone applications were compared: 1) oral dydrogesterone (30 mg/day), 2) vaginal micronized progesterone gel (90 mg/day), 3) dydrogesterone (20 mg/day) plus micronized progesterone gel (90 mg/day) (dydrogesterone + micronized progesterone gel), 4) micronized progesterone capsules (600 mg/day), and (5) subcutaneous injection of progesterone 25 mg/day (subcutan-P4). The vaginal micronized progesterone gel application served as the reference group. Ultrasound was performed after 12-15 days of oral estrogen (≥4 mg/day) administration. If the endometrial thickness was ≥7 mm, luteal phase support was started, up to six days before frozen embryo transfer, depending on the development of the frozen embryo. The primary outcome was the clinical pregnancy rate. Secondary outcomes included live birth rate, ongoing pregnancy, and miscarriage and biochemical pregnancy rate.

Results

In total, 391 cycles were included in the study (median age of study participants 35 years; IQR 32-38 years, range 26-46 years). The proportions of blastocysts and single transferred embryos were lower in the micronized progesterone gel group. Differences among the five groups in other baseline characteristics were not significant. Multiple logistic regression analysis, adjusting for pre-defined covariates, showed that the clinical pregnancy rates were higher in the oral dydrogesterone only group (OR = 2.87, 95% CI 1.38-6.00, p=0.005) and in the dydrogesterone + micronized progesterone gel group (OR = 5.19, 95% CI 1.76-15.36, p = 0.003) compared to micronized progesterone gel alone. The live birth rate was higher in the oral dydrogesterone-only group (OR = 2.58; 95% CI 1.11-6.00; p=0.028) and showed no difference in the smaller dydrogesterone + micronized progesterone gel group (OR = 2.49; 95% CI 0.74-8.38; p=0.14) compared with the reference group.

Conclusion

The application of dydrogesterone in addition to micronized progesterone gel was associated with higher clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate and then the use of micronized progesterone gel alone. DYD should be evaluated as a promising LPS option in FET Cycles.

Progesterone: The Key Factor of the Beginning of Life

Progesterone is the ovarian steroid produced by the granulosa cells of follicles after the LH peak at mid-cycle. Its role is to sustain embryo endometrial implantation and ongoing pregnancy. Other biological effects of progesterone may exert a protective function in supporting pregnancy up to birth. Luteal phase support (LPS) with progesterone is the standard of care for assisted reproductive technology. Progesterone vaginal administration is currently the most widely used treatment for LPS. Physicians and patients have been reluctant to change an administration route that has proven to be effective. However, some questions remain open, namely the need for LPS in fresh and frozen embryo transfer, the route of administration, the optimal duration of LPS, dosage, and the benefit of combination therapies. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the uterine and extra-uterine effects of progesterone that may play a role in embryo implantation and pregnancy, and to discuss the advantages of the use of progesterone for LPS in the context of Good Medical Practice.

Subcutaneous progesterone (Prolutex) versus vaginal (Cyclogest) for luteal phase support in IVF/ICSI cycles: a randomized controlled clinical trial

Background

To compare the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of subcutaneous vaginal progesterone suppository for luteal phase support (LPS) in assisted reproduction technology (ART) cycles in patients referred to the Royan Institute.

Methods

This randomized clinical trial was conducted from August 2016 to March 2018. The infertile patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) and/or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) were evaluated. The controlled ovarian stimulation (COH) was performed in all of the patients with standard long GnRH agonist protocol. After ovum pickup, eligible women were randomly allocated into two groups. In group A, since oocyte retrieval day, subcutaneous injections of progesterone (50 mg) (Prolutex®) were used daily, and in group B, two vaginal suppositories (Cyclogest ®) were administrated for LPS. The clinical pregnancy and miscarriage rates and the drug’s side effect were compared between two groups by appropriate statistical tests.

Results

Finally, 40 patients in each group were enrolled, and the IVF/ICSI outcomes were compared between groups. The data analysis showed that no significant differences were found between groups in terms of the demographic, infertility characteristics, and the COH outcome between groups. The chemical and clinical pregnancy rates (CPR) in group A were significantly higher than those of group B (P = 0.04, P = 0.02, respectively). The implantation and twin pregnancy rates in group B were significantly higher than those in group A (P = 0.009, P = 0.02, respectively).

Conclusion

The subcutaneous administration of progesterone 25 mg twice daily for LPS was associated with higher CPR versus vaginal progesterone, and it was safe and well-tolerated in the follow-up. In addition, it can be a suitable replacement in cases of allergic reactions to vaginal suppositories. However, further study is required to compare the cost-effectiveness of these medications.

Trial registration

The study was also registered in the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials on February 19, 2015 (IRCT201402191141N18 at www.irct.ir, registered prospectively).

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.

Key to Life: Physiological Role and Clinical Implications of Progesterone

The most recent studies of progesterone research provide remarkable insights into the physiological role and clinical importance of this hormone. Although the name progesterone itself means "promoting gestation", this steroid hormone is far more than a gestational agent. Progesterone is recognized as a key physiological component of not only the menstrual cycle and pregnancy but also as an essential steroidogenic precursor of other gonadal and non-gonadal hormones such as aldosterone, cortisol, estradiol, and testosterone. Based on current findings, progesterone and novel progesterone-based drugs have many important functions, including contraception, treatment of dysfunctional uterine bleeding, immune response, and prevention of cancer. Considering the above, reproduction and life are not possible without progesterone; thus, a better understanding of this essential molecule could enable safe and effective use of this hormone in many clinical conditions.

Subcutaneous progesterone versus vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization: A retrospective analysis from daily clinical practice

Objective

Progesterone application for luteal phase support is a well-established concept in in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. Water-soluble subcutaneous progesterone injections have shown pregnancy rates equivalent to those observed in patients receiving vaginal administration in randomized controlled trials. Our study aimed to investigate whether the results from those pivotal trials could be reproduced in daily clinical practice in an unselected patient population.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study in non-standardized daily clinical practice, we compared 273 IVF cycles from 195 women undergoing IVF at our center for luteal phase support with vaginal administration of 200 mg of micronized progesterone three times daily or subcutaneous injection of 25 mg of progesterone per day.

Results

Various patient characteristics including age, weight, height, number of oocytes, and body mass index were similar between both groups. We observed no significant differences in the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) per treatment cycle between the subcutaneous (39.9%) and vaginal group (36.5%) (p=0.630). Covariate analysis showed significant correlations of the number of transferred embryos and the total dosage of stimulation medication with the CPR. However, after adjustment of the CPR for these covariates using a regression model, no significant difference was observed between the two groups (odds ratio, 0.956; 95% confidence interval, 0.512–1.786; p=0.888).

Conclusion

In agreement with randomized controlled trials in study populations with strict selection criteria, our study determined that subcutaneous progesterone was equally effective as vaginally applied progesterone in daily clinical practice in an unselected patient population.

Luteal Phase Support Using Subcutaneous Progesterone: A Systematic Review

Luteal phase support (LPS) is crucial in assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles when the luteal phase has been found to be defective. Such deficiency is most likely related to the supraphysiological steroid levels that usually occurr in stimulated cycles which, in turn, could severely affect luteinizing hormone (LH) secretion and function, thereby negatively influencing the luteal phase. A number of different medications and routes have been successfully used for LPS in ART. Although an optimal protocol has not yet been identified, the existing plethora of medications offer the opportunity to personalize LPS according to individual needs. Subcutaneous administration progesterone has been proposed for LPS and could represent an alternative to a vaginal and intramuscular route. The aim of the present systematic review is to summarize the evidence found in the literature concerning the application of subcutaneous progesterone in ARTs, highlighting the benefits and limits of this novel strategy. With this aim in mind, we carried out systematic research in the Medline, ISI Web of Knowledge, and Embase databases from their inception through to November 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were preferred by the authors in the elaboration of this article, although case-control and cohort studies have also been considered. According to our findings, evidence exists which supports that, in women with a good prognosis undergoing a fresh in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle, subcutaneous Pg is not inferior to vaginal products. In the Frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycle, data concerning efficacy is mixed with an increased miscarriage rate in women undergoing a subcutaneous route in oocyte donor recipients. Data concerning the acceptance of the subcutaneous route versus the vaginal route are encouraging despite the different scales and questionnaires which were used. In addition, a cost-effective analysis has not yet been conducted.

Luteal phase support for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection fresh cycles: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Various luteal phase supports (LPSs) have been proven to increase the pregnancy rate in fresh cycles of in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection; however, there is still significant debate regarding the optimal use of LPS.

METHODS

A systematic review with the use of a network meta-analysis was performed via electronic searching of Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar (up to January 2021) to compare the effectiveness and safety of various LPSs, as well as to evaluate the effects of different initiations of LPSs on pregnancy outcomes. The primary outcomes included live birth and ongoing pregnancy, with the results presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Eighty-nine randomized controlled trials with 29,625 women comparing 14 interventions or placebo/no LPS treatments were included in the meta-analyses. No significant differences were found in terms of the pregnancy outcomes when LPS was started within 48 h after oocyte retrieval versus a delayed initiation between 48 h and 96 h after oocyte retrieval. The addition of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists to progesterone vaginal pessaries showed a significant benefit in terms of live birth (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.78). Only human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) was found to be more efficacious than the placebo/no LPS treatment in terms of live birth (OR 15.43, 95% CI 2.03 to 117.12, low evidence). Any active LPSs (except for rectal or subcutaneous progesterone) was significantly more efficacious than the placebo/no LPS treatment in terms of ongoing pregnancy, with ORs ranging between 1.77 (95% CI 1.08 to 2.90) for the vaginal progesterone pessary and 2.14 (1.23 to 3.70) for the intramuscular progesterone treatment. Among the comparisons of efficacy and tolerability between the active treatments, the differences were small and very uncertain.

CONCLUSION

Delays in progesterone supplementation until 96 h after oocyte retrieval does not affect pregnancy outcomes. The safety of GnRH agonists during the luteal phase needs to be evaluated in future studies before the applications of these agonists in clinical practice. With comparable efficacy and acceptability, there may be several viable clinical options for LPS.

New concepts and difficulties with progesterone supplementation in the luteal phase

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Management of the luteal phase (LP) in assisted reproductive cycles has aroused interest in recent years. The reason is that it seems that the individualization of LP support may be necessary, since the concept of 'one size fits all' does not apply to this treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies carried out in hormone replacement therapy cycles (also called artificial cycles) have shown that serum levels of progesterone (P) are related to pregnancy outcomes. This represents a milestone in the management of artificial cycles (AC), because until a few years ago it was believed that serum levels did not really reflect the effectiveness of P, which is why they were neglected. However, it is not as straightforward as it seems, because the interpretation of serum progesterone values will depend on the type of progesterone used and its route of administration. Likewise, the findings observed in AC are not applicable to what occurs in a fresh transfer cycle after ovarian stimulation or an embryo transfer in the context of a natural cycle.

SUMMARY

In this manuscript, we will summarize the current situation in LP management.

Comparison of Subcutaneous and Vaginal Progesterone Used for Luteal Phase Support in Patients Undergoing Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection Cycles

Objective:

Luteal phase defect in patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) is a sign of uterine failure due to insufficient progesterone effects on the endometrium. This study aims to compare the success rate and side effects of subcutaneous progesterone and vaginal progesterone to support the luteal phase in ART cycles.

Methods:

In this prospective randomized study, we used the traditional intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), and we transferred one or two 4-8 cell fetuses based on the patient’s age on the third day of inoculation. We started with luteal phase support from the day of oocyte recovery and the patients randomly received either a daily dose of 25mg subcutaneous progesterone (Prolutex, IBSA Switzerland) or a 400mg dose of vaginal progesterone (Cyclogest, Actoverco, United Kingdom) every 12 hours. If blood BHCG pregnancy test was positive, support for the luteal phase continued until week 10 of gestation. The measured outcomes were the clinical, chemical and ongoing pregnancy rates as well as the rate of early abortion, patients’ acceptance, tolerance and satisfaction.

Results:

The results of the present study showed that there was no statistically significant difference between clinical, chemical and ongoing pregnancy rates - as well as the rate of early abortion, and patients’ satisfaction when comparing the two treatment Groups.

Conclusions:

it seems that the subcutaneous form of progesterone can be used in patients who are not willing to use vaginal progesterone, with similar treatment results and patient satisfaction, when compared to vaginal progesterone.

Subcutaneous progesterone versus vaginal progesterone for luteal-phase support in frozen-thawed embryo transfer: A cross-sectional study

Background

Luteal-phase support is a complex and controversial issue in the field of reproductive management.

Objective

To compare the safety and efficacy of low-dose subcutaneous progesterone with the vaginal progesterone for luteal-phase support in patients undergoing rozen-thawed embryo transfer.

Materials and Methods

In this cross-sectional study, information related to 77 women that had frozen-thawed embryo transfer was reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups based on the route of progesterone administration used as a luteal-phase support. When the endometrial thickness reached ≥ 8 mm, in one group progesterone (Prolutex) 25 mg/ daily subcutaneous and in another group, vaginal progesterone (CyclogestⓇ) 400 mg twice or (EndometrinⓇ) 100 mg thrice daily, were administrated and continued until menstruation or in case of clinical pregnancy for 8 wk after the embryo transfer when the fetal heart activity was detected by ultrasonography.

Results

The patient's characteristics were matched and there was no significant difference. The chemical and clinical pregnancy rate was higher in the vaginal progesterone group compared to the prolutex group, but statistically unnoticeable, (40% vs. 29.6%, p = 0.367) and (28% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.581), respectively.

Conclusion

The findings of this study demonstrate that the new subcutaneous progesterone can be a good alternative for intramuscular progesterone in women that dislike and do not accept vaginal formulations as luteal-phase support in assisted reproductive technology.

Progesterone in Addition to Standard of Care vs Standard of Care Alone in the Treatment of Men Hospitalized With Moderate to Severe COVID-19: A Randomized, Controlled Pilot Trial

BACKGROUND

Severity of illness in COVID-19 is consistently lower in women. A focus on sex as a biological factor may suggest a potential therapeutic intervention for this disease. We assessed whether adding progesterone to standard of care (SOC) would improve clinical outcomes of hospitalized men with moderate to severe COVID-19.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does short-term subcutaneous administration of progesterone safely improve clinical outcome in hypoxemic men hospitalized with COVID-19?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a pilot, randomized, open-label, controlled trial of subcutaneous progesterone in men hospitalized with confirmed moderate to severe COVID-19. Patients were randomly assigned to receive SOC plus progesterone (100 mg subcutaneously twice daily for up to 5 days) or SOC alone. In addition to assessment of safety, the primary outcome was change in clinical status on day 7. Length of hospital stay and number of days on supplemental oxygen were key secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients were enrolled from April 2020 to August 2020; 22 were randomized to the control group and 20 to the progesterone group. Two patients from the progesterone group withdrew from the study before receiving progesterone. There was a 1.5-point overall improvement in median clinical status score on a seven-point ordinal scale from baseline to day 7 in patients in the progesterone group as compared with control subjects (95% CI, 0.0-2.0; P = .024). There were no serious adverse events attributable to progesterone. Patients treated with progesterone required three fewer days of supplemental oxygen (median, 4.5 vs 7.5 days) and were hospitalized for 2.5 fewer days (median, 7.0 vs 9.5 days) as compared with control subjects.

INTERPRETATION

Progesterone at a dose of 100 mg, twice daily by subcutaneous injection in addition to SOC, may represent a safe and effective approach for treatment in hypoxemic men with moderate to severe COVID-19.

TRIAL REGISTRY

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04365127; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

What is the optimal luteal support in assisted reproductive technology?

The need for luteal phase support in IVF/ICSI is well established. A large effort has been made in the attempt to identify the optimal type, start, route, dosage and duration of luteal phase support for IVF/ICSI and frozen embryo transfer. These questions are further complicated by the different types of stimulation protocols and ovulation triggers used in ART. The aim of this review is to supply a comprehensive overview of the available types of luteal phase support, and the indications for their use.A review of the literature was carried out in the effort to find the optimal luteal phase support regimen with regards to pregnancy related outcomes and short and long term safety.The results demonstrate that vaginal, intramuscular, subcutaneous and rectal progesterone are equally effective as luteal phase support in IVF/ICSI. GnRH agonists and oral dydrogesterone are new and promising treatment modalities but more research is needed. hCG and estradiol are not recommended for luteal phase support. More research is needed to establish the most optimal luteal phase support in frozen embryo transfer cycles, but progesterone has been shown to improve live birth rate in some studies. Luteal phase support should be commenced between the evening of the day of oocyte retrieval, and day three after oocyte retrieval and it should be continued at least until the day of positive pregnancy test.So, in conclusion still more large and well-designed RCT's are needed to establish the most optimal luteal phase support in each stimulation protocol, and especially in frozen embryo transfer.

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.

Dydrogesterone as an oral alternative to vaginal progesterone for IVF luteal phase support: A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the evidence on the efficacy and safety of oral dydrogesterone versus micronized vaginal progesterone (MVP) for luteal phase support. Embase and MEDLINE were searched for studies that evaluated the effect of luteal phase support with daily administration of oral dydrogesterone (20 to 40 mg) versus MVP capsules (600 to 800 mg) or gel (90 mg) on pregnancy or live birth rates in women undergoing fresh-cycle IVF (protocol registered at PROSPERO [CRD42018105949]). Individual participant data (IPD) were extracted for the primary analysis where available and aggregate data were extracted for the secondary analysis. Nine studies were eligible for inclusion; two studies had suitable IPD (full analysis sample: n = 1957). In the meta-analysis of IPD, oral dydrogesterone was associated with a significantly higher chance of ongoing pregnancy at 12 weeks of gestation (odds ratio [OR], 1.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08 to 1.61; P = 0.0075) and live birth (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.57; P = 0.0214) compared to MVP. A meta-analysis combining IPD and aggregate data for all nine studies also demonstrated a statistically significant difference between oral dydrogesterone and MVP (pregnancy: OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.34; P = 0.04; live birth: OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.38; P = 0.02). Safety parameters were similar between the two groups. Collectively, this study indicates that a higher pregnancy rate and live birth rate may be obtained in women receiving oral dydrogesterone versus MVP for luteal phase support.

Meta-analysis of noninferiority and equivalence trials: ignoring trial design leads to differing and possibly misleading conclusions

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study is to examine the analytic approach of meta-analyses that include noninferiority or equivalence (NI/EQ) trials.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We used Scopus to identify meta-analyses including NI/EQ trials. We extracted data from the meta-analyses and their included randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We used the RCT's NI/EQ margins to reinterpret the results of the meta-analyses, assessed for risk of biases unique to NI/EQ trials, and evaluated the consistency of the meta-analysis interpretation when using NI/EQ margins.

RESULTS

We identified 38 unique meta-analyses including 515 RCTs, of which 125 (24.3%) were NI/EQ trials. Fourteen meta-analyses (36.8%) reported the study design of their included trials, but only one (2.6%) interpreted their pooled estimates using NI/EQ margins and none assessed for risks of bias unique to NI/EQ trials. Nearly all NI/EQ trials (n = 116, 92.8%) included in the meta-analyses reported NI/EQ margins. The meta-analyses of 30 outcomes were reinterpreted using the NI/EQ margins; reinterpretations conflicted with the conclusion of the meta-analyses in most cases (n = 20, 66.7%).

CONCLUSION

Most meta-analyses including NI/EQ trials ignore trial design and do not assess risks of bias unique to NI/EQ studies. Meta-analyses addressing questions previously explored as NI/EQ should conduct an NI/EQ meta-analysis or use clear language when performing standard (i.e., superiority) meta-analyses.

Progesterone use in assisted reproductive technology

Progesterone is the main hormone in the luteal phase. It plays a key role in preparing the uterus for a possible pregnancy, and in maintaining it after it has occurred. In assisted reproduction treatments, there is usually a luteal phase deficiency, so it is necessary to supplement this critical phase to obtain the best results, not only of implantation but also of ongoing pregnancy. Among all the available options, exogenously administered progestogens are the most used, as they have proven their efficacy and safety. This review will address the most relevant aspects of luteal phase support with progesterone in the different scenarios an embryo transfer can be performed, such as the stimulated cycle, the artificial cycle, or the natural cycle. Although there is no evidence of the perfect protocol for all patients, recent studies point to the need of individualizing luteal phase support according to the needs of each patient.

Subcutaneous versus vaginal progesterone for vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer in artificial cycles

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does subcutaneous progesterone provide similar live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates as vaginal progesterone in frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles?

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study (n = 214 women), consisting of 107 women who received subcutaneous progesterone for FET in artificial cycles and 107 women receiving vaginal progesterone who were matched for age and treatment cycle rank acted as controls. All embryos were transferred in an artificial cycle with 6 mg per day oral oestradiol valerate starting on the second or third day of the menstrual cycle. Patients underwent transvaginal ultrasound on the 10th day of priming, and subcutaneous progesterone (50 mg/day) or vaginal progesterone (180 mg/day) was started if the endometrium had a trilinear pattern regardless of its thickness. Embryo transfer was carried out on the sixth day of progesterone administration. Oestradiol and progesterone were continued until a negative pregnancy test, 10 days after the transfer, or until the completion of 10th gestational week. Main outcome measures were live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. Positive pregnancy test rates (64.5% versus 58.9%; P = 0.40; RR 1.1; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.35), live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates (39.3% versus 35.5%; P = 0.57; RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.56) and miscarriage rates (29% versus 25.5%; P = 0.68; RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.55) were similar in the subcutaneous progesterone and vaginal progesterone groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Subcutaneous progesterone seems to be an effective alternative to vaginal progesterone in patients undergoing FET. Randomized controlled trials comparing it with different progesterone preparations, routes and protocols are needed to better define its role.

A Phase III randomized controlled trial of oral dydrogesterone versus intravaginal progesterone gel for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization (Lotus II): results from the Chinese mainland subpopulation

Lotus II, a randomized, open-label, multicenter, international study compared the efficacy and safety of oral dydrogesterone versus micronized vaginal progesterone (MVP) gel for luteal support in IVF. A prespecified subgroup analysis was performed on 239 Chinese mainland subjects from the overall study population (n = 1034), who were randomized to oral dydrogesterone 30 mg or 8% MVP gel 90 mg daily from the day of oocyte retrieval until 12 weeks of gestation. The aim was to demonstrate non-inferiority of oral dydrogesterone to MVP gel, assessed by the presence of a fetal heartbeat at 12 weeks of gestation. In the Chinese mainland subpopulation, there was a numerical difference of 9.4% in favor of oral dydrogesterone, with ongoing pregnancy rates at 12 weeks of gestation of 61.4% and 51.9% in the oral dydrogesterone and MVP gel groups, respectively (adjusted difference, 9.4%; 95% CI: -3.4 to 22.1); in the overall population, these were 38.7% and 35%, respectively (adjusted difference, 3.7%; 95% CI: -2.3 to 9.7). In both the Chinese mainland subpopulation and the overall population, dydrogesterone had similar efficacy and safety to MVP gel. With convenient oral administration, dydrogesterone has potential to transform luteal support treatment.

Luteal Phase Support in IVF: Comparison Between Evidence-Based Medicine and Real-Life Practices

Background: Luteal phase support (LPS) in assisted reproduction cycles has been widely investigated in recent years. Although progesterone represents the preferential product for luteal phase supplementation in cycles with fresh embryo transfer, there is ongoing debate as to when to start, which is the best route, dosage and duration, and whether there is a place for additional agents. Nevertheless, fertility specialists do not always adhere to evidence-based recommendations in their clinical practice. The aim of this worldwide web-based survey is to document the currently used protocols for luteal phase support and appraisal tendencies of drug prescription behavior and to compare these to the existing evidence-based literature. Material and Methods: A questionnaire was developed and sent by secure e-mail to 1,480 clinicians involved in ART worldwide. One hundred and forty-eighth clinicians from 34 countries returned completed questionnaires. Results: Progesterone support is usually started on the day of oocyte retrieval. Eighty percent of clinicians applied the administration of vaginal progesterone only. Intramuscular progesterone was prescribed by 6%, while oral progestin or subcutaneous progesterone were each prescribed by 5% of clinicians, respectively. Progesterone was administered until 8-10 weeks' gestation by 35% and 12 weeks by 52% of respondents. Conclusions: Vaginal administration was the preferred route for luteal phase support. The reported emerging use of the oral route confirms the expected shift in clinical practice as a result of recent evidence showing a reassuring safety score of oral progestins. In spite of the lack of evidence supporting the continuation of luteal support until 12 weeks' gestation, this practice was adhered to by more than half of the clinicians surveyed, highlighting the difference between evidence-based medicine and real-life practices.

Innovations in assisted reproductive technologies: impact on contemporary donor egg practice and future advances

Innovations in assisted reproductive technologies (ART) have driven progress in the donor egg field since the birth of the first baby derived from a donor egg in 1983. Over time, donor oocytes have become an increasingly used option for patients unable to conceive with autologous oocytes. In donor egg, the unique separation of the oocyte source and recipient uterus has created a model that has propelled advances in ART. Progressive ART innovations that have optimized the oocyte donor and resulting embryo include the following: evaluation of ovarian reserve, controlled ovarian hyperstimulation regimens that reduce the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, blastocyst culture, oocyte cryopreservation, and preimplantation genetic testing. For donor egg recipients, methods to optimize the endometrium to maximize implantation include endometrial receptivity testing, immunologic donor-recipient matching, and increased understanding of the uterine microbiome.

Dydrogesterone: pharmacological profile and mechanism of action as luteal phase support in assisted reproduction

The pharmacological and physiological profiles of progestogens used for luteal phase support during assisted reproductive technology are likely to be important in guiding clinical choice towards the most appropriate treatment option. Various micronized progesterone formulations with differing pharmacological profiles have been investigated for several purposes. Dydrogesterone, a stereoisomer of progesterone, is available in an oral form with high oral bioavailability; it has been used to treat a variety of conditions related to progesterone deficiency since the 1960s and has recently been approved for luteal phase support as part of an assisted reproductive technology treatment. The primary objective of this review is to critically analyse the clinical implications of the pharmacological and physiological properties of dydrogesterone for its uses in luteal phase support and in early pregnancy.

Early stop of progesterone supplementation after confirmation of pregnancy in IVF/ICSI fresh embryo transfer cycles of poor responders does not affect pregnancy outcome

Previous studies indicated that progesterone can be withdrawn at the time of the first positive β-hCG test without compromising the clinical pregnancy outcome in normal ovarian responder. However, the effect of early stop of progesterone supplementation for patients with poor ovarian response (POR) has not been investigated. This study retrospectively collected data from patients with POR in 156 IVF/ICSI fresh embryo transfer (ET) cycles in single tertiary center from January 2010 to June 2016. All the patients met ESHRE consensus, the Bologna criteria, of POR and had hCG injection for luteal phase support (LPS) on day 2, 5 and 8 after ovum pick-up. The pregnant patients were divided into two groups: early stop group represented those who stopped LPS from day of positive pregnancy test; control group represented those who kept progesterone supplementation till gestational age of 9 weeks. There were no significant differences in age, BMI, parity, hormone data, number of follicles>10(mm), endometrial thickness and number of embryos transferred between the two groups. After adjustment for possible confounders with multivariate logistic regression analysis, the clinical pregnancy rates (55.0% vs. 57.1%, P = 0.35), ongoing pregnancy rates (47.0% vs. 46.4%, P = 0.66), miscarriage rates (34.0% vs. 26.7%, P = 0.66) and live-birth rates (44.0% vs. 46.4%, P = 0.41) were not statistically different between early stop group and the control group. Our study indicates that early stop of progesterone supplementation on the day of positive pregnancy test for patients of POR using hCG as LPS in fresh ET cycles does not affect pregnancy outcome.

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

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

Endometrial thickness on the day of embryo transfer is a poor predictor of IVF treatment outcome

STUDY QUESTION

What is the independent contribution of endometrial thickness (EMT) on day of embryo transfer to achieving an ongoing pregnancy and live birth after IVF treatment?

SUMMARY ANSWER

EMT is a poor predictor of IVF success and has only little independent prognostic value.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

In a number of previous studies, pregnancy rates have been found to be lower in patients with thin endometrium.

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DUARATION

This is a retrospective analysis of data from two large, randomized phase III studies (conducted in Europe and the USA) comparing s.c. progesterone with vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support. The studies were very similar in design, patient population and outcome, and the study data were combined and analysed on an individual patient level.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHOD

Subjects were infertile patients with an indication for IVF/ICSI, aged between 18 and 42 years, BMI <30 kg/m², <3 prior ART cycles and ≥ 3 oocytes after controlled ovarian stimulation with GnRH-agonist or GnRH-antagonist. EMT was assessed on day of embryo transfer (n = 1401). The association of EMT and ongoing pregnancy rate was determined by comparison of outcomes by quantiles of EMT. The predictive capacity of EMT for ongoing pregnancy achievement was assessed at each millimeter cut-off. Finally, a regression model was built to determine the contribution of EMT among other confounders, such as age and oocyte numbers, on the likelihood of ongoing pregnancy and live birth.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

In univariate analysis, ongoing pregnancy rates correlate to EMT. In patients above a cut-off of ≥9 mm EMT, the chance of pregnancy was higher as compared to patients with an EMT of 3-8 mm (odds ratio (OR) = 1.69, 95% CI: 1.23-2.35, P = 0.001; sensitivity 88.89%, specificity 17.52%, positive predictive value 39.02%, negative predictive value 72.64% and likelihood ratio 1.08). In multivariate regression analysis, after controlling for trial, female age and oocyte numbers, EMT was a statistically significant predictor of live birth (OR = 1.05, 95% CI: 1.00-1.10; P = 0.0351). If EMT indeed is an independent factor affecting outcome, this finding implies that at a baseline live birth rate of 20% an increase of 2 mm in EMT should result in an increase of the live birth rate of ~1.6%.

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

The independent contribution of EMT to live birth likelihood is small and may result from (undetermined) confounding. The EMT on day of embryo transfer is usually higher as compared to the EMT on day of triggering final oocyte maturation when it is conventionally assessed during routine cycle monitoring. Furthermore, endometrial lining pattern and/or subendometrial Doppler flow have not been assessed and, accordingly, the conclusions of this work are limited to only the thickness of the endometrium.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

EMT can be ignored during cycle monitoring of the majority of IVF patients and only the extremes of EMT deserve further diagnostic work-up.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

The study was supported by IBSA. G.G. has received personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, Ferring, Merck-Serono, Finox, TEVA, IBSA, Glycotope, Abbott, Gedeon-Richter as well as personal fees from VitroLife, NMC Healthcare, ReprodWissen, BioSilu and ZIVA. S.T. and B.C. are employees of IBSA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00827983 and NCT00828191 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Trial registration date

23 January 2009 (NCT00827983 and NCT00828191).

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

January 2009 (NCT00827983 and NCT00828191).