Comparison of intramuscular versus subcutaneous aqueous progesterone for luteal phase support in artificially prepared frozen embryo transfer cycles

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.

Luteal phase support in fresh and frozen embryo transfers

Context

Luteal phase support (LPS) has become an essential component of IVF protocols following both fresh and frozen embryo transfers, yet there is still controversy with regards to the optimal protocol of LPS to enhance treatment outcome.

Search strategy

A search via PubMed for all the selected topics was limited to publications from the past 10 years and to English language. We subsequently searched the reference lists of retrieved articles. Where available, RCTs were chosen over non-randomized studies. Here we provide an updated review of the current literature on various issues relating to LPS, in both fresh and frozen embryo transfers. The timing of LPS initiation as well as the route of administration and dosing are discussed for both fresh and frozen transfers. A separate discussion for frozen thawed embryo transfer in natural cycles and non-ovulatory cycles is presented.

Conclusions

We present data that supports the use of Progesterone LPS in fresh and frozen embryo transfers. No benefits were found to the addition of hCG or estradiol to progesterone LPS in fresh transfers, however GnRH agonist may have a role. IM Progesterone was not advantageous over vaginal progesterone in fresh transfers but was superior in frozen transfers. The timing of LPS introduction, the interval to embryo transfer, as well as the serum concentration of progesterone, have significant effects on the success of the treatment.

Implantation Failures and Miscarriages in Frozen Embryo Transfers Timed in Hormone Replacement Cycles (HRT): A Narrative Review

The recent advent of embryo vitrification and its remarkable efficacy has focused interest on the quality of hormone administration for priming frozen embryo transfers (FETs). Products available for progesterone administration have only been tested in fresh assisted reproduction technologies (ARTs) and not in FET. Recently, there have been numerous concordant reports pointing at the inefficacy of vaginal preparations at delivering sufficient progesterone levels in a sizable fraction of FET patients. The options available for coping with these shortcomings of vaginal progesterone include (i) rescue options with the addition of injectable subcutaneous (SC) progesterone at the dose of 25 mg/day administered either solely to women whose circulating progesterone is <10 ng/mL or to all in a combo option and (ii) the exclusive administration of SC progesterone at the dose of 25 mg BID. The wider use of segmented ART accompanied with FET forces hormone replacement regimens used for priming endometrial receptivity to be adjusted in order to optimize ART outcomes.