Luteal Phase Support in assisted reproductive technology treatment: focus on Endometrin(R) (progesterone) vaginal insert

Progestogens for prevention of luteinising hormone (LH) surge in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation as part of an assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycle

BACKGROUND

Currently, gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues are used to prevent premature ovulation in ART cycles. However, their costs remain high, the route of administration is invasive and has some adverse effects. Oral progestogens could be cheaper and effective to prevent a premature LH surge.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of using progestogens to avoid spontaneous ovulation in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO in Dec 2021. We contacted study authors and experts to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included progestogens for ovulation inhibition in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane, including the risk of bias (RoB) assessment. The primary review outcomes were live birth rate (LBR) and oocyte pick-up cancellation rate (OPCR). Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), cumulative pregnancy, miscarriage rate (MR), multiple pregnancies, LH surge, total and MII oocytes, days of stimulation, dose of gonadotropins, and moderate/severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) rate. The primary analyses were restricted to studies at overall low and some concerns RoB, and sensitivity analysis included all studies. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 RCTs (2643 subfertile women undergoing ART, 47 women used oocyte freezing for fertility preservation and 534 oocyte donors). Progestogens versus GnRH antagonists We are very uncertain of the effect of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) 10 mg compared with cetrorelix on the LBR in poor responders (odds ratio (OR) 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 2.13, one RCT, N = 340, very-low-certainty evidence), suggesting that if the chance of live birth following GnRH antagonists is assumed to be 18%, the chance following MPA would be 14% to 32%. There may be little or no difference in OPCR between progestogens and GnRH antagonists, but due to wide Cs (CIs), we are uncertain (OR 0.92, 95%CI 0.42 to 2.01, 3 RCTs, N = 648, I² = 0%, low-certainty evidence), changing the chance of OPCR from 4% with progestogens to 2% to 8%. Given the imprecision found, no conclusions can be retrieved on CPR and MR. Low-quality evidence suggested that using micronised progesterone in normo-responders may increase by 2 to 6 the MII oocytes in comparison to GnRH antagonists. There may be little or no differences in gonadotropin doses. Progestogens versus GnRH agonists Results were uncertain for all outcomes comparing progestogens with GnRH agonists. One progestogen versus another progestogen The analyses comparing one progestogen versus another progestogen for LBR did not meet our criteria for primary analyses. The OPCR was probably lower in the MPA 10 mg in comparison to MPA 4 mg (OR 2.27, 95%CI 0.90 to 5.74, one RCT, N = 300, moderate-certainty evidence), and MPA 4 mg may be lower than micronised progesterone 100 mg, but due to wide CI, we are uncertain of the effect (OR 0.81, 95%CI 0.43 to 1.53, one RCT, N = 300, low-certainty evidence), changing the chance of OPCR from 5% with MPA 4 mg to 5% to22%, and from 17% with micronised progesterone 100 mg to 8% to 24%. When comparing dydrogesterone 20 mg to MPA, the OPCR is probably lower in the dydrogesterone group in comparison to MPA 10 mg (OR 1.49, 95%CI 0.80 to 2.80, one RCT, N = 520, moderate-certainty evidence), and it may be lower in dydrogesterone group in comparison to MPA 4 mg but due to wide confidence interval, we are uncertain of the effect (OR 1.19, 95%CI 0.61 to 2.34, one RCT, N = 300, low-certainty evidence), changing the chance of OPCR from 7% with dydrogesterone 20 to 6-17%, and in MPA 4 mg from 12% to 8% to 24%. When comparing dydrogesterone 20 mg to micronised progesterone 100 mg, the OPCR is probably lower in the dydrogesterone group (OR 1.54, 95%CI 0.94 to 2.52, two RCTs, N=550, I² = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence), changing OPCR from 11% with dydrogesterone to 10% to 24%. We are very uncertain of the effect in normo-responders of micronised progesterone 100 mg compared with micronised progesterone 200 mg on the OPCR (OR 0.35, 95%CI 0.09 to 1.37, one RCT, N = 150, very-low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in CPR and MR between MPA 10 mg and dydrogesterone 20 mg. There may be little or no differences in MII oocytes and gonadotropins doses. No cases of moderate/severe OHSS were reported in most of the groups in any of the comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Little or no differences in LBR may exist when comparing MPA 4 mg with GnRH agonists in normo-responders. OPCR may be slightly increased in the MPA 4 mg group, but MPA 4 mg reduces the doses of gonadotropins in comparison to GnRH agonists. Little or no differences in OPCR may exist between progestogens and GnRH antagonists in normo-responders and donors. However, micronised progesterone could improve by 2 to 6 MII oocytes. When comparing one progestogen to another, dydrogesterone suggested slightly lower OPCR than MPA and micronised progesterone, and MPA suggested slightly lower OPCR than the micronised progesterone 100 mg. Finally, MPA 10 mg suggests a lower OPCR than MPA 4 mg. There is uncertainty regarding the rest of the outcomes due to imprecision and no solid conclusions can be drawn.

The addition of dydrogesterone improves the outcomes of pregnant women with low progesterone levels when receiving vaginal progesterone alone as luteal support in HRT‐FET cycles

Purpose

Vaginal progesterone (VP) alone has been used as luteal support (LS) in HRT‐FET cycles without measuring serum progesterone concentrations (SPC) because it can achieve adequate intrauterine progesterone levels. However, several reports showed that the co‐administration of progestin produced better outcomes than VP alone. We tried to address this discrepancy, focusing on SPC.

Methods

VP was given to 180 women undergoing HRT‐FET. We measured SPC when pregnancy was diagnosed on day 14 of LS. We compared assisted reproductive technology outcomes between VP alone versus VP + dydrogesterone (D).

Results

When using VP alone, average SPC in the miscarriage cases (9.6 ng/mL) were significantly lower compared with the ongoing pregnancy (OP) cases (14.7 ng/mL). The cut‐off value for progesterone, 10.7 ng/mL, was a good predictor for the subsequent course of the pregnancy. Of 76 women receiving D ± VP from the start of LS and achieving a pregnancy, the numbers of OP were 44 (84.6%) in SPC ≥ 10.7 ng/mL and 20 (83.3%) in SPC ≤ 10.7 ng/mL with no significant difference.

Conclusion

VP alone resulted in lower SPC in some pregnant women in HRT‐FET cycles and exhibited a lower OP rate. The co‐administration of D improved an OP rate of low progesterone cases to the level comparable with non‐low progesterone cases.

Cyclodextrin regulated natural polysaccharide hydrogels for biomedical applications-a review

Cyclodextrin and its derivative (CDs) are natural building blocks for linking with other components to afford functional biomaterials. Hydrogels are polymer network systems that can form hydrophilic three-dimensional network structures through different cross-linking methods and are developing as potential materials in biomedical applications. Natural polysaccharide hydrogels (NPHs) are widely adopted in biomedical field with good biocompatibility, biodegradability, low cytotoxicity, and versatility in emulating natural tissue properties. Compared with conventional NPHs, CD regulated natural polysaccharide hydrogels (CD-NPHs) maintain good biocompatibility, while improving poor mechanical qualities and unpredictable gelation times. Recently, there has been increasing and considerable usage of CD-NPHs while there is still no review comprehensively introducing their construction, classification, and application of these hydrogels from the material point of view regarding biomedical fields. To draw a complete picture of the current and future development of CD-NPHs, we systematically overview the classification of CD-NPHs, and provide a holistic view on the role of CD-NPHs in different biomedical fields, especially in drug delivery, wound dressing, cell encapsulation, and tissue engineering. Moreover, the current challenges and prospects of CD-NPHs are discussed rationally, providing an insight into developing vibrant fields of CD-NPHs-based biomedicine, and facilitating their translation from bench to clinical medicine.

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).

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.

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.

Progesterone loaded thermosensitive hydrogel for vaginal application: Formulation and in vitro comparison with commercial product

Progesterone (PGT) is a natural hormone that stimulates and regulates various important functions, such as the preparation of the female body for conception and pregnancy. Due to its low water solubility, it is administered in a micronized form and/or in vehicles with specific solvents requirements. In order to improve the drug solubility, inclusion complexes of PGT and β-cyclodextrins were obtained by the freeze-drying method. Two β-cyclodextrins (native and methylated) in two solvents (water and water:ethanol) and different molar ratio of the reagents were the variables tested for the selection of the best condition for the preparation of the complexes. The PGT/randomly methylated-β-cyclodextrin complexes were incorporated into chitosan thermosensitive hydrogels, as an alternative formulation for the vaginal administration of PGT. Neither the micro and macroscopic characteristics of the gels nor the transition time from solution to gel were modified after the complexes incorporation. In addition, chitosan gels with complexes resisted better the degradation in simulated vaginal fluid in comparison to commercial gel (Crinone®). The chitosan gel with inclusion complexes and Crinone® were tested in vitro in a diffusion assay to evaluate the delivery of the hormone and its diffusion through porcine epithelial mucosa obtained from vaginal tissue. Chitosan gel presented sustained diffusion similar to the exhibited by commercial gel. The use of chitosan gels with inclusion complexes based on cyclodextrins would be a viable alternative for vaginal administration of PGT.

17-α Hydroxyprogesterone Nanoemulsifying Preconcentrate-Loaded Vaginal Tablet: A Novel Non-Invasive Approach for the Prevention of Preterm Birth

Preterm birth (PTB) is a major cause of infant mortality in the United States and around the globe. Makena^®—once-a-week intramuscular injection of 17-α Hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17P)—is the only FDA approved treatment for the prevention of PTB. Invasive delivery of 17P requires hospitalization and expert personnel for injection. Vaginal delivery of 17P would be preferable, because of high patient compliance, reduced systemic exposure, fewer side effects, and no need for hospitalization. The objective of the present study was to prepare and evaluate a self-nanoemulsifying vaginal tablet of 17P. A solid self-nanoemulsifying preconcentrate (S-SNEDDS) of 17P and dimethylacetamide (DMA) was developed using medium chain triglycerides, a non- immunogenic surfactant, and co-processed excipient (PVA-F100). The tablet prepared was characterized for emulsification time, particle size, solid state properties, and drug release. The formulation showed >50% inhibition of TNF-α release from LPS-stimulated RAW 264.7 cells. Importantly, there were significant differences in rates of PTB and average time to delivery between control and vaginal 17P-treated groups in LPS-stimulated timed pregnant E15.5 mice. Considering the lacuna of therapeutic approaches in this area, vaginal delivery of 17P for the prevention of preterm birth has significant clinical relevance.

A questionnaire-based audit to assess overall experience and convenience among patients using vaginal progesterone tablets (Lutigest®) for luteal phase support during IVF treatment

Purpose

The aim of this audit was to assess the overall experience and patient convenience of vaginal progesterone tablets (Lutigest^®, marketed as Endometrin^® in the USA) used for luteal phase support (LPS) during in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment.

Patients and methods

This questionnaire-based audit included responses from 100 patients undergoing IVF treatment at six IVF clinics in the UK from September 2015 to November 2016. Fourteen days after starting progesterone supplementation for LPS during their IVF treatment, patients rated overall experience and perceived convenience of the prescribed progesterone by completing a questionnaire.

Results

Of the 100 patients included, 96 received vaginal progesterone tablets for LPS. Overall, 53.1% (51/96) indicated that the progesterone tablets were “very easy” to use; 42.7% (41/96) and 44.8% (43/96) found it “very convenient” or “neither convenient or inconvenient” to administer the tablet, respectively. Overall experience with using progesterone tablets was rated as “very comfortable” by 34.4% (33/96) and “neither comfortable or uncomfortable” by 56.3% (54/96) of patients. The applicator was used by 93.8% (90/96) of patients to administer the tablet, and 86.5% (83/96) indicated that the applicator was easy to clean for repeated use. A total of 33 patients had a previous IVF cycle during which they were prescribed vaginal progesterone pessaries for LPS. Compared with progesterone pessaries, the majority found treatment with progesterone tablets to be more comfortable (60.6%; 20/33) and more convenient (57.6%; 19/33) and indicated that the progesterone tablet was their preferred progesterone formulation for LPS (60.6%; 20/33).

Conclusion

These findings offer insights into real-world patient experiences with the progesterone vaginal tablet formulation. The results suggest overall patient convenience, ease, and comfort with using progesterone vaginal tablets for LPS. The majority of patients found progesterone vaginal tablets more convenient and comfortable to use compared with progesterone pessaries.

Comparison of oral dydrogesterone with vaginal progesteronefor luteal support in IUI cycles: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study, we have compared the advantages of oral dydrogestrone with vaginal progesterone (cyclogest) for luteal support in intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles. Progesterone supplementation is the first line treatment when luteal phase deficiency (LPD) can reasonably be assumed.

OBJECTIVE

This study was conduct to compare the effect of oral dydrogestrone with vaginal Cyclogest on luteal phase support in the IUI cycles.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective, randomized, double blind study was performed in a local infertility center from May 2013 to May 2014. It consisted of 150 infertile women younger than35years old undergoing ovarian stimulation for IUI cycles. They underwent ovarian stimulation with oral dydrogesterone (20 mg) as group A and vaginal cyclogest (400 mg) as group B in preparation for the IUI cycles. Clinical pregnancy and abortion rates, mid luteal progesterone (7daysafter IUI) and patient satisfaction were compared between two groups.

RESULTS

The mean serum progesterone levels was significantly higher in group A in comparison with group B (p=0.001). Pregnancy rates in group A was not statistically different in comparison with group B (p =0.58). Abortion rate in two groups was not statistically different (p =0.056) although rate of abortion was higher in group B in comparison with A group. Satisfaction rates were significantly higher in group A compared to group B (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

We concluded that oral dydrogestrone is effective as vaginal progesterone for luteal-phase support in woman undergoing IUI cycles. Moreover, the mean serum progesterone levels and satisfaction rates in dydrogestrone group were higher than cyclogest group.

Patients' administration preferences: progesterone vaginal insert (Endometrin®) compared to intramuscular progesterone for Luteal phase support

Background

Administration of exogenous progesterone for luteal phase support has become a standard of practice. Intramuscular (IM) injections of progesterone in oil (PIO) and vaginal administration of progesterone are the primary routes of administration. This report describes the administration preferences expressed by women with infertility that were given progesterone vaginal insert (PVI) or progesterone in oil injections (PIO) for luteal phase support during fresh IVF cycles.

Methods

A questionnaire to assess the tolerability, convenience, and ease of administration of PVI and PIO given for luteal phase support was completed by infertile women diagnosed with PCOS and planning to undergo IVF. The women participated in an open-label study of highly purified human menopausal gonadotropins (HP-hMG) compared with recombinant FSH (rFSH) given for stimulation of ovulation.

Results

Most women commented on the convenience and ease of administration of PVI, while a majority of women who administered IM PIO described experiencing pain. In addition, their partners often indicated that they had experienced at least some anxiety regarding the administration of PIO. The most distinguishing difference between PVI and PIO in this study was the overall patient preference for PVI. Despite the need to administer PVI either twice a day or three times a day, 82.6% of the patients in the PVI group found it “very” or “somewhat convenient” compared with 44.9% of women in the PIO group.

Conclusions

The results of this comprehensive, prospective patient survey, along with findings from other similar reports, suggest that PVI provides an easy-to-use and convenient method for providing the necessary luteal phase support for IVF cycles without the pain and inconvenience of daily IM PIO. Moreover, ongoing pregnancy rates with the well-tolerated PVI were as good as the pregnancy rates with PIO.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT00805935

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1742-4755-11-78) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Subcutaneous progesterone versus vaginal progesterone gel for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization: a noninferiority randomized controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of subcutaneous progesterone (Prolutex, 25 mg; IBSA Institut Biochimique SA) with vaginal progesterone gel (Crinone, 8%; Merck Serono) for luteal phase support (LPS) in assisted reproduction technologies (ART) patients.

DESIGN

Prospective, open-label, randomized, controlled, parallel-group, multicenter, two-arm, noninferiority study.

SETTING

Thirteen European fertility clinics.

PATIENT(S)

A total of 683 ART patients randomized to two groups: Prolutex, 25 mg subcutaneously daily (n = 339); and Crinone, 90 mg 8% gel daily (n = 344).

INTERVENTION(S)

In vitro fertilization and embryo transfer were performed according to site-specific protocols. On the day of oocyte retrieval, Prolutex or Crinone gel was begun for LPS and continued for up to 10 weeks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Ongoing pregnancy rate.

RESULT(S)

The primary end point, ongoing pregnancy rates at 10 weeks of treatment were 27.4% and 30.5% in the Prolutex and Crinone groups, respectively (intention to treat [ITT]). The nonsignificant difference between the groups was -3.09% (95% confidence interval [CI] -9.91-3.73), indicating noninferiority of Prolutex to Crinone. Delivery and live birth rates resulted to be equivalent between the two treatments (26.8% vs. 29.9% in the Prolutex and Crinone groups, respectively [ITT]; difference -3.10 [95% CI -9.87-3.68]). No statistically significant differences were reported for any of the other secondary efficacy endpoints, including comfort of usage and overall satisfaction.

CONCLUSION(S)

Implantation rate, pregnancy rate, live birth rate, and early miscarriage rate for Prolutex were similar to those for Crinone. The adverse event profiles were similar and Prolutex was safe and well tolerated.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00827983.