Oral micronized progesterone combined with vaginal progesterone gel for luteal support

Effects of two different types of luteal support on pregnancy outcomes following antagonist fresh embryo transfer: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Only a small number of studies have reported the use of progesterone vaginal gel in combination with dydrogesterone as part of the antagonist protocol for fresh embryo transfer. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the effects of two types of luteal support on pregnancy outcomes following the antagonist protocol for fresh embryo transfer.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of clinical data from infertile patients who underwent fresh embryo transfer via the antagonist protocol (2785 cycles) between February and July 2019 and between February and July 2021 at the Peking University Third Hospital Reproductive Medicine Centre. According to the luteal support received, the cycle groups were divided into the progesterone vaginal gel group (single medication or VP group; 1170 cycles) and the progesterone vaginal gel plus dydrogesterone group (combination medication or DYD + VP group; 1615 cycles). After propensity score matching, the clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, early miscarriage, and ectopic pregnancy rates were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

In total, 1057 pairs of cycles were successfully matched via propensity scores. The clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates in the combination medication group were significantly higher than those in the single medication group (P < 0.05), whereas no significant differences were noted in the early miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy rates between the two groups (both P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Combined luteal support after the antagonist protocol is preferred for patients undergoing fresh cycle embryo transfer.

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).

A review of conventional and sustained-release formulations of oral natural micronized progesterone in obstetric indications

BACKGROUND

Exogenous progesterone is a treatment option for obstetric indications associated with reduced progesterone activity. Oral natural micronized progesterone (NMP) is effective, although it requires multiple daily doses and may cause adverse events due to its active metabolites. A sustained-release formulation of NMP (NMP-SR) has been developed to overcome the limitations of conventional oral NMP.

METHODS

This narrative review examines the available evidence for oral NMP and NMP-SR in several obstetric indications of interest.

RESULTS

Literature searches identified 17 studies of oral NMP (luteal phase support during assisted reproduction, prevention of threatened miscarriage, prevention of preterm delivery), and clinical studies supporting use of NMP-SR (luteal phase support during intrauterine insemination, maintenance of high-risk pregnancy). Oral NMP was effective for luteal phase support during in vitro fertilization and intrauterine insemination, prevention of threatened miscarriage, and prevention of preterm delivery. NMP-SR was comparable to dydrogesterone for luteal phase support during intrauterine insemination and effectively maintained high-risk pregnancies. Oral NMP-SR was well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

By releasing progesterone gradually and circumventing first-pass metabolism, NMP-SR elicits the desired therapeutic effect with benefits over conventional oral NMP in terms of bioavailability, once-daily dosing and improved tolerability. Oral NMP-SR appears to be a valuable option for treating obstetric conditions associated with insufficient progesterone exposure.

Sporadic miscarriage: evidence to provide effective care

The physical and psychological effect of miscarriage is commonly underappreciated. The journey from diagnosis of miscarriage, through clinical management, to supportive aftercare can be challenging for women, their partners, and caregivers. Diagnostic challenges can lead to delayed or ineffective care and increased anxiety. Inaccurate diagnosis of a miscarriage can result in the unintended termination of a wanted pregnancy. Uncertainty about the therapeutic effects of interventions can lead to suboptimal care, with variations across facilities and countries. For this Series paper, we have developed recommendations for practice from a literature review, appraisal of guidelines, and expert group discussions. The recommendations are grouped into three categories: (1) diagnosis of miscarriage, (2) prevention of miscarriage in women with early pregnancy bleeding, and (3) management of miscarriage. We recommend that every country reports annual aggregate miscarriage data, similarly to the reporting of stillbirth. Early pregnancy services need to focus on providing an effective ultrasound service, as it is central to the diagnosis of miscarriage, and be able to provide expectant management of miscarriage, medical management with mifepristone and misoprostol, and surgical management with manual vacuum aspiration. Women with the dual risk factors of early pregnancy bleeding and a history of previous miscarriage can be recommended vaginal micronised progesterone to improve the prospects of livebirth. We urge health-care funders and providers to invest in early pregnancy care, with specific focus on training for clinical nurse specialists and doctors to provide comprehensive miscarriage care within the setting of dedicated early pregnancy units.

The role of luteal support during IVF: a qualitative systematic review

The aim of this review is to provide qualitative evidence-based synthesis regarding efficacy of luteal-phase support on fertility outcome in women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) with respect to clinical or live birth rates and pregnancy loss rates. Although the need of luteal phase support in IVF/ICSI cycles is well-known, the optimal start, dosage, route and the duration of the luteal phase support is still subject of debate. Data suggest that the optimal period to start with the luteal phase support would be between 24-72 hours after oocyte-retrieval and should continue at least until a positive pregnancy test is achieved. However, the majority of IVF-centers worldwide provide progesterone support up to 8 weeks of pregnancy. Among the well-established routes of luteal support, oral dydrogesterone and subcutaneous progesterone represent new and interesting routes of progesterone administration. The current studies support these routes of progesterone administration use in terms of comparable pregnancy rates and pregnancy loss rates to vaginal and intramuscular progesterone. Furthermore, the acceptance and tolerability among patients seems to be even better. In the frozen-thawed embryo transfer, dydrogesterone and vaginal progesterone are not effective as monotherapy treatments; however, when combined there is no reason to avoid one or the other in this setting.

Hormonal medication in medically assisted reproduction: a systematic review of assessments from patients

Several hormonal fertility medications have comparable effectiveness. A literature review was conducted into patients' assessments regarding seven medication characteristics including 'side effects' and 'ease of use'. Medline, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched for female fertility patients' written assessments of a hormonal medication. The tools used were appraised and common (i.e. ≥10%) unpleasant consequences were distinguished from rare ones. The 35 eligible studies did not rely on valid and reliable tools and did not provide patient assessments regarding all seven medication characteristics for any of the globally used medications. Evidence on medications for oocyte triggering was absent and for induction of pituitary quiescence it was scarce. Regarding medications for ovarian stimulation and luteal support, evidence on general side effects (mostly headache), local side effects (mostly pain), 'interference with home life' and 'impact on psychological wellbeing' was found. Evidence on 'ease of use' and 'required education' was only identified for medication for ovarian stimulation. Evidence on 'interference with work life' and 'compliance worry' was absent. This review calls for randomized controlled trials questioning patients with valid and reliable tools. In the meantime, this review's summary of the best available evidence can be integrated in decision aids facilitating personalized and informed medication choices.

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.

Oral dydrogesterone versus vaginal progesterone gel in the luteal phase support: randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare efficacy, satisfaction and tolerability of oral dydrogesterone and micronized vaginal progesterone gel used for luteal supplementation.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial. A total of 853 infertile women undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment in University Hospital Center "Sisters of Mercy", Zagreb, Croatia. Luteal support was provided as Crinone 8%(®) vaginal progesterone gel (90mg) administered daily, or oral dydrogesterone Duphaston(®) (2× 10mg) administered two times daily. Progesterone was administered from the day of oocyte retrieval (day 0) till pregnancy test or in a case of pregnancy, until week 10.

RESULTS

The on-going pregnancy rates were comparable between Crinone 8%(®) vaginal progesterone gel and oral dydrogesterone - Duphaston(®) (28.1% versus 30.3%; OR 1.11 (0.82-1.49 with 95% CI)). Overall satisfaction and tolerability were significantly higher in the dydrogesterone group than in the Crinone group. Vaginal bleeding, interference with coitus and local adverse side effects such as vaginal irritation and discharge occurred significantly more in Crinone group than in dydrogesterone group.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral dydrogesterone is effective drug, well tolerated and accepted among patients and can be considered for routine luteal support.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01178931; www.clinicaltrials.gov.