A comparative, randomized study of three different progesterone support of the luteal phase following IVF/ET program

Comparison of luteal support protocols in fresh IVF/ICSI cycles: a network meta-analysis

Despite the proven superiority of various luteal phase support protocols (LPS) over placebo in view of improved pregnancy rates in fresh cycles of IVF (in vitro fertilization) and ICSI (intracytoplasmic sperm injection) cycles, there is ongoing controversy over specific LPS protocol selection, dosage, and duration. The aim of the present study was to identify the optimal LPS under six core aspects of ART success, clinical pregnancy, live birth as primary outcomes and biochemical pregnancy, miscarriage, multiple pregnancy, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) events as secondary outcomes. Twelve databases, namely Embase (OVID), MEDLINE (R) (OVID), GlobalHealth (Archive), GlobalHealth, Health and Psychosocial Instruments, Maternity & Infant Care Database (MIDIRS), APA PsycTests, ClinicalTrials.gov, HMIC Health Management Information Consortium, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Scopus and two prospective registers, MedRxiv, Research Square were searched from inception to Aug.1st, 2023, (PROSPERO Registration: CRD42022358986). Only Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) were included. Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) model was employed for outcome analysis, presenting fixed effects, odds ratios (ORs) with 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). Vaginal Progesterone (VP) was considered the reference LPS given its' clinical relevance. Seventy-six RCTs, comparing 22 interventions, and including 26,536 participants were included in the present NMA. Overall CiNeMa risk of bias was deemed moderate, and network inconsistency per outcome was deemed low (Multiple pregnancy χ2: 0.11, OHSS χ2: 0.26), moderate (Clinical Pregnancy: χ2: 7.02, Live birth χ2: 10.95, Biochemical pregnancy: χ2: 6.60, Miscarriage: χ2: 11.305). Combinatorial regimens, with subcutaneous GnRH-a (SCGnRH-a) on a vaginal progesterone base and oral oestrogen (OE) appeared to overall improve clinical pregnancy events; VP + OE + SCGnRH-a [OR 1.57 (95% CrI 1.11 to 2.22)], VP + SCGnRH-a [OR 1.28 (95% CrI 1.05 to 1.55)] as well as live pregnancy events, VP + OE + SCGnRH-a [OR 8.81 (95% CrI 2.35 to 39.1)], VP + SCGnRH-a [OR 1.76 (95% CrI 1.45 to 2.15)]. Equally, the progesterone free LPS, intramuscular human chorionic gonadotrophin, [OR 9.67 (95% CrI 2.34, 73.2)] was also found to increase live birth events, however was also associated with an increased probability of ovarian hyperstimulation, [OR 1.64 (95% CrI 0.75, 3.71)]. The combination of intramuscular and vaginal progesterone was associated with higher multiple pregnancy events, [OR 7.09 (95% CrI 2.49, 31.)]. Of all LPS protocols, VP + SC GnRH-a was found to significantly reduce miscarriage events, OR 0.54 (95% CrI 0.37 to 0.80). Subgroup analysis according to ovarian stimulation (OS) protocol revealed that the optimal LPS across both long and short OS, taking into account increase in live birth and reduction in miscarriage as well as OHSS events, was VP + SCGnRH-a, with an OR 2.89 [95% CrI 1.08, 2.96] and OR 2.84 [95% CrI 1.35, 6.26] respectively. Overall, NMA data suggest that combinatorial treatments, with the addition of SCGnRH-a on a VP base result in improved clinical pregnancy and live birth events in both GnRH-agonist and antagonist ovarian stimulation protocols.

Luteal phase support in assisted reproductive technology

Infertility affects one in six couples, with in vitro fertilization (IVF) offering many the chance of conception. Compared to the solitary oocyte produced during the natural menstrual cycle, the supraphysiological ovarian stimulation needed to produce multiple oocytes during IVF results in a dysfunctional luteal phase that can be insufficient to support implantation and maintain pregnancy. Consequently, hormonal supplementation with luteal phase support, principally exogenous progesterone, is used to optimize pregnancy rates; however, luteal phase support remains largely 'black-box' with insufficient clarity regarding the optimal timing, dosing, route and duration of treatment. Herein, we review the evidence on luteal phase support and highlight remaining uncertainties and future research directions. Specifically, we outline the physiological luteal phase, which is regulated by progesterone from the corpus luteum, and evaluate how it is altered by the supraphysiological ovarian stimulation used during IVF. Additionally, we describe the effects of the hormonal triggers used to mature oocytes on the degree of luteal phase support required. We explain the histological transformation of the endometrium during the luteal phase and evaluate markers of endometrial receptivity that attempt to identify the 'window of implantation'. We also cover progesterone receptor signalling, circulating progesterone levels associated with implantation, and the pharmacokinetics of available progesterone formulations to inform the design of luteal phase support regimens.

Effects of different progesterone levels on reproductive outcomes in assisted reproductive technologies: from molecular basis to treatment strategies

PURPOSE

The aim of this narrative review is to offer an overview about the role of progesterone levels on pregnancy outcome in patients undergoing assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs).

METHODS

A detailed computerized search of the literature was performed in the main electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science) to determine the importance of elevated progesterone levels at different stages of the cycle for pregnancy rates in the in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle. Our review also provides information on the differences between elevated progesterone levels and their interpretation in normal and in poorly responding women.

RESULTS

After careful evaluation, our search strategy yielded a total of 15 included articles, showing the possible factors that may have had an impact on the increased progesterone level before human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) injection and the different thresholds above which the pregnancy rate was lower. Furthermore, increased progesterone on cycle day 2 or 3 could serve as a marker for increased progesterone in the late follicular phase, which is associated with a lower pregnancy rate.

CONCLUSION

Despite the literature data that support the negative effect of elevated progesterone on fresh cycles, due to lack of randomized controlled trials, the value of measuring progesterone in daily practice is questionable. Available evidence supports the detrimental effect of elevated progesterone in different subgroups of women, although there is still the need for defining different thresholds and durations of high progesterone exposure. The need for various thresholds for different cohorts of women, the inter-assay variability is making this decision harder.

The strength of evidence supporting luteal phase progestogen after assisted reproduction: A systematic review with reference to trial registration and pre-specified endpoints

OBJECTIVE

To measure the potential for outcome switching and selective reporting, in trials of luteal phase progestogen in assisted reproduction.

STUDY DESIGN

Trials identified through Medline and Embase in August 2017 using the MeSH term "assisted reproductive technology, luteal phase support" and associated text words. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing progestogen of any type, dose, and route of administration, with placebo or no treatment as luteal phase support in subfertile women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intrauterine insemination (IUI). Eight trials after IVF and eleven after IUI, involving 1040 and 2764 participants respectively, were included.

RESULTS

None of the eight trials of progestogen therapy after IVF had been registered. Only 5/11 trials of progestogen after IUI had been registered, and only two of these prospectively. One of these had a registered primary outcome of "pregnancy sac plus heartbeat", but reported "pregnancy sac alone"; we judged this as an altered primary outcome. Three other trial had a registered primary outcome of "clinical pregnancy undefined" and reported "intra or extra-uterine pregnancy with a heartbeat"; we judged this alteration as minimal. That trial was negative. Overall, 26 different outcomes had been reported by the various trials. The three outcomes reported most often were pregnancy undefined (9/19), miscarriage (11/19) and clinical pregnancy (9/19). This suggests considerable potential for selective outcome reporting or outcome switching.

CONCLUSION

Apart from one negative trial, none of the evidence on luteal phase progestogen after assisted reproduction comes from prospectively registered trials: a slender reed indeed.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients with repeated implantation failure: which route is best?†

The aim of this study was to assess whether the dual administration of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) increases the effect of only systemic administration in patients with RIF. This retrospective study included 111 infertile normoresponder cases with two or more unsuccessful in vitro fertilisation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) treatments, despite the transfer of good quality embryos. Patients were divided into three groups according to using G-CSF and administration route; Group 1 included patients who received subcutaneous (SC) G-CSF only (n = 38), Group 2 comprised patients who received both intrauterine (IU) and SC G-CSF (n = 39), the control group included patients who did not receive G-CSF who were matched by age (n = 34). The IU route of G-CSF was employed on ovulation triggering day. G-CSF was administered via an IU insemination catheter. SC injection was started on the day of oocyte retrieval and administered for 15 days at 100,000 IU/kg. Foetal cardiac activity (clinical pregnancy) was present in 50 patients (46.2%) after embryo transfer, with 20 patients included in SC group (Group 1) (52.6%), 25 in SC + IU group (Group 2) (64.1%) and 8 (23.5%) in control group and significant difference was observed between groups (p: .001). Pregnancy resulted in live birth in 43 patients (39.8%), with 13 patients belonging in Group 1 (34.2%), 25 in Group 2 (61.5%) and 8 (23.5%) in control group; significant differences were observed between groups (p: .001). In conclusion, our results showed that dual administration of G-CSF was significantly more effective that the SC only method.Impact statementWhat is already known on this subject? A number of studies reported the possible benefits of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) administration in recurrent implantation failure (RIF) and recurrent pregnancy loss patients; however, it is unclear which administration route is better.What do the results of this study add? Our results showed that G-CSF is a promising and safe agent for increasing live birth rates in patients with RIF. Additionally, dual administration is considered the better method than SC only administration.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Clinicians should consider a combination of IU use before ovulation triggering with SC administration starting from the day of oocyte collection for using G-CSF for the treatment of recurrent implantation failure. Additionally, our data show the need for research in the field of administration route of G-CSF for RIF. We suggest that further studies be performed in this field.

A randomized double-blinded controlled trial of hCG as luteal phase support in natural cycle frozen embryo transfer

STUDY QUESTION

Does the use of hCG as luteal phase support in natural cycle frozen embryo transfer (FET) increase the ongoing pregnancy rate?

STUDY ANSWER

The use of hCG in natural cycle FET did not improve the ongoing pregnancy rate.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The use of luteal phase support in stimulated cycles has been associated with higher live-birth rates and the results are similar when using hCG or progesterone.

STUDY DESIGN SIZE, DURATION

This is a randomized double-blinded controlled trial of 450 women recruited between August 2013 and October 2015.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

Women with regular cycles undergoing natural cycle FET were recruited. Serial serum hormonal concentrations were used to time natural ovulation and at least Day 2 cleavage embryos were replaced. Patients were randomized into either: (i) the treatment group, receiving 1500 IU hCG on the day of FET and 6 days after FET, or (ii) the control group, receiving normal saline on these 2 days.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The ongoing pregnancy rate [60/225 (26.7%) in the treatment group vs 70/225 (31.3%) in the control group, odds ratio 1.242 (95% CI 0.825-1.869)], implantation rate and miscarriage rate were comparable between the two groups. In the treatment group, there were significantly more cycles with top quality embryos transferred and a significantly higher serum oestradiol level, but a comparable serum progesterone level, 6 days after FET. However, no significant differences were observed in serum oestradiol and progesterone levels 6 days after FET between the pregnant and non-pregnant women. In the multivariate logistic regression, the number of embryos transferred was the only significant factor predictive of the ongoing pregnancy rate after natural cycle FET.

LIMITATIONS REASON FOR CAUTION

This study only included FET with cleavage stage embryos and only hCG, not vaginal progesterone, was used as luteal phase support.

WIDER IMPLANTATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The findings in this study do not support the use of hCG for luteal phase support in natural cycle FET.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

No external funding was used and there were no competing interests.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

clinicaltrial.gov identifier: NCT01931384.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

23/8/2013.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT

30/8/2013.

Uterine peristalsis and fertility: current knowledge and future perspectives: a review and meta-analysis

Although uterine contractions in the non-pregnant uterus have been studied extensively, the knowledge gained has not been used in general fertility treatment work-up. In this review paper, we provide an overview of the current knowledge on uterine peristalsis (UP), based on the available literature. This literature shows that UP influences pregnancy chances in both natural and artificial cycles. Although the physiological background of these contractions is not completely clear, we know that several factors can be of influence, like uterine pathologies and hormones. Several options to alter pregnancy outcome by interfering with uterine contractions have been studied. Our meta-analysis on therapeutic options shows positive results of progesterone at time of embryo transfer in IVF cycles or prostaglandins at time of intrauterine insemination, although the quality of evidence is low. These therapies are probably most beneficial in selected groups of patients with abnormal contraction patterns. The introduction of an objective and user-friendly UP measuring tool suitable for use in daily practice would make it possible to identify and monitor these patients. We suggest that future research should focus on the physiology of initiation of UP and on the development of an effective standard measuring tool.

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.

Dienogest. A possible conservative approach in bladder endometriosis. Results of a pilot study

Deep endometriosis involvement of the bladder is uncommon but it is symptomatic in most of the cases. Although laparoscopic excision is very effective, some patients with no pregnancy desire require a medical approach. We performed a pilot study on the effect of a new progestin dienogest on bladder endometriosis. Six patients were treated for 12 months with dienogest 2 mg/daily. Pain, urinary symptoms, quality of life, nodule volume and side effects were recorded. During treatment, symptoms improved very quickly and the nodules exhibit a remarkable reduction in size. Dienogest may be an alternative approach to bladder endometriosis.

New trends of progestins treatment of endometriosis

The management of endometriosis with OC or progestins is generally safe, effective and well-tolerated and should constitute the first line of medical treatment in symptomatic patients who do not want to have children. Progestins, synthetic progestational agents, have been used in the management of symptomatic endometriosis both as primary therapy and as an adjunct to surgical time. A variety of oral agents have been employed in this regard and investigators have demonstrated differing degrees of benefit. The lack of a standardized instrument to evaluate painful symptoms makes comparative analysis more difficult. Concern about efficacy and side effect has pushed the research on the development of new well-tolerated drugs and to develop new administration routes to minimize general side effects. Aim of the present review is to present the results of clinical studies on new trends of progestins in the treatment of endometriosis.

Which luteal phase support is better for each IVF stimulation protocol to achieve the highest pregnancy rate? A superiority randomized clinical trial

In vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles generate abnormalities in luteal-phase sex steroid concentrations and this represent an important limiting factor to achieve a good pregnancy rate. Although there are evidences about the usefulness of luteal phase support (LPS) after IVF cycles, no consensus exist about the best dose and way of progesterone (PG) administration, the advantages of estradiol (E2) supplementation and which IVF protocol could benefit from one more than other LPS scheme. Aim of the study was to assess the best LPS (low-dose PG, high-dose PG, high-dose PG and E2 supplementation) to achieve the highest clinical/ongoing pregnancy rate according to stimulation protocol, E2 at ovulation induction, endometrial thickness at pick-up and women's age. We conducted a randomized trial on 360 women undergoing IVF (180 treated by long-GnRH agonist, 90 by short-GnRH agonist and 90 by short-GnRH antagonist protocol) and stimulated by recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone alone. Our data demonstrated that high-dose PG is better than low-dose to increase both clinical and ongoing pregnancy rate. E2 supplementation are mandatory in case of short-GnRH antagonist protocol and strongly suggested in all protocols when E2max <5 nmol/l and endometrial thickness <10 mm. In long-GnRH agonist protocols, as well as in patients >35 years, the real advantages of E2 supplementation remain debatable and require further confirmation.

Comparison of intravaginal progesterone gel and intramuscular 17-α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate in luteal phase support

The main objective of this study was to compare the pregnancy rates of intramuscular (IM) 17-α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17-HPC) and intravaginal (IV) progesterone gel administration in in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) cycles. The IM 17-HPC and IV progesterone groups included 632 (66.4%) and 320 (33.6%) women undergoing the first cycles of IVF-ET treatment, respectively. Multivariate analyses annotated for all potential confounders showed that the use of IV progesterone retained a predictive value for the total β-human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) positivity and clinical pregnancy rates [adjusted odds ratio (OR), 1.97; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.28–3.03; P=0.002; and OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.07–2.60; P=0.03, respectively]. However, biochemical and on-going pregnancy rates did not differ significantly between the groups (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.00–3.41; P=0.05; and OR, 1.43, 95% CI, 0.89–2.30; P=0.14, respectively). Luteal phase support (LPS) with IV progesterone gel in comparison with IM 17-HPC appears to be associated with higher clinical pregnancy rates in IVF-ET cycles. However, this benefit is clinically irrelevant in terms of on-going pregnancy outcomes.

Luteal phase support for assisted reproduction cycles

BACKGROUND

Progesterone prepares the endometrium for pregnancy by stimulating proliferation in response to human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), which is produced by the corpus luteum. This occurs in the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. In assisted reproduction techniques (ART) the progesterone or hCG levels, or both, are low and the natural process is insufficient, so the luteal phase is supported with either progesterone, hCG or gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists. Luteal phase support improves implantation rate and thus pregnancy rates but the ideal method is still unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2004 (Daya 2004).

OBJECTIVES

To determine the relative effectiveness and safety of methods of luteal phase support in subfertile women undergoing assisted reproductive technology.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), LILACS, conference abstracts on the ISI Web of Knowledge, OpenSigle for grey literature from Europe, and ongoing clinical trials registered online. The final search was in February 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of luteal phase support in ART investigating progesterone, hCG or GnRH agonist supplementation in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles. Quasi-randomised trials and trials using frozen transfers or donor oocyte cycles were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data per women and three review authors independently assessed risk of bias. We contacted the original authors when data were missing or the risk of bias was unclear. We entered all data in six different comparisons. We calculated the Peto odds ratio (Peto OR) for each comparison.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-nine studies with a total of 16,327 women were included. We assessed most of the studies as having an unclear risk of bias, which we interpreted as a high risk of bias. Because of the great number of different comparisons, the average number of included studies in a single comparison was only 1.5 for live birth and 6.1 for clinical pregnancy.Five studies (746 women) compared hCG versus placebo or no treatment. There was no evidence of a difference between hCG and placebo or no treatment except for ongoing pregnancy: Peto OR 1.75 (95% CI 1.09 to 2.81), suggesting a benefit from hCG. There was a significantly higher risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) when hCG was used (Peto OR 3.62, 95% CI 1.85 to 7.06).There were eight studies (875 women) in the second comparison, progesterone versus placebo or no treatment. The results suggested a significant effect in favour of progesterone for the live birth rate (Peto OR 2.95, 95% CI 1.02 to 8.56) based on one study. For clinical pregnancy (CPR) the results also suggested a significant result in favour of progesterone (Peto OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.61) based on seven studies. For the other outcomes the results indicated no difference in effect.The third comparison (15 studies, 2117 women) investigated progesterone versus hCG regimens. The hCG regimens were subgrouped into comparisons of progesterone versus hCG and progesterone versus progesterone + hCG. The results did not indicate a difference of effect between the interventions, except for OHSS. Subgroup analysis of progesterone versus progesterone + hCG showed a significant benefit from progesterone (Peto OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.79).The fourth comparison (nine studies, 1571 women) compared progesterone versus progesterone + oestrogen. Outcomes were subgrouped by route of administration. The results for clinical pregnancy rate in the subgroup progesterone versus progesterone + transdermal oestrogen suggested a significant benefit from progesterone + oestrogen. There was no evidence of a difference in effect for other outcomes.Six studies (1646 women) investigated progesterone versus progesterone + GnRH agonist. We subgrouped the studies for single-dose GnRH agonist and multiple-dose GnRH agonist. For the live birth, clinical pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy rate the results suggested a significant effect in favour of progesterone + GnRH agonist. The Peto OR for the live birth rate was 2.44 (95% CI 1.62 to 3.67), for the clinical pregnancy rate was 1.36 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.66) and for the ongoing pregnancy rate was 1.31 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.67). The results for miscarriage and multiple pregnancy did not indicate a difference of effect.The last comparison (32 studies, 9839 women) investigated different progesterone regimens:intramuscular (IM) versus oral administration, IM versus vaginal or rectal administration, vaginal or rectal versus oral administration, low-dose vaginal versus high-dose vaginal progesterone administration, short protocol versus long protocol and micronized progesterone versus synthetic progesterone. The main results of this comparison did not indicate a difference of effect except in some subgroup analyses. For the outcome clinical pregnancy, subgroup analysis of micronized progesterone versus synthetic progesterone showed a significant benefit from synthetic progesterone (Peto OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.96). For the outcome multiple pregnancy, the subgroup analysis of IM progesterone versus oral progesterone suggested a significant benefit from oral progesterone (Peto OR 4.39, 95% CI 1.28 to 15.01).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review showed a significant effect in favour of progesterone for luteal phase support, favouring synthetic progesterone over micronized progesterone. Overall, the addition of other substances such as estrogen or hCG did not seem to improve outcomes. We also found no evidence favouring a specific route or duration of administration of progesterone. We found that hCG, or hCG plus progesterone, was associated with a higher risk of OHSS. The use of hCG should therefore be avoided. There were significant results showing a benefit from addition of GnRH agonist to progesterone for the outcomes of live birth, clinical pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy. For now, progesterone seems to be the best option as luteal phase support, with better pregnancy results when synthetic progesterone is used.

Luteal support in reproduction: when, what and how?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Luteal phase support (LPS) is an integral part of the IVF cycles treated by gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues. There is a worldwide controversy concerning the type of hormones used for LPS, its dose, duration, when to start and when to stop. This review will cover original as well as recent data on this topic.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is a consensus in the literature among IVF centers that LPS is necessary for IVF cycles. Human chorionic gonadotropin is less commonly used than progesterone for LPS because of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome risk. Several studies suggested that intramuscular progesterone is superior to vaginal progesterone for LPS; however, the majority of centers use vaginal progesterone to avoid side effects of intramuscular injection. There is no difference in pregnancy rate whether LPS is started on day of human chorionic gonadotropin, oocyte retrieval or embryo transfer. There is a strong evidence that LPS should be stopped either on the day of pregnancy test or the first ultrasound (6-7 weeks pregnancy). There is no evidence that addition of estrogen will improve pregnancy rate.

SUMMARY

Progesterone is the preferred option for LPS. It should start within 2 days from triggering ovulation and should end on day of beta human chorionic gonadotropin or the day of the first ultrasound (6-7 weeks pregnancy).

WITHDRAWN: Luteal phase support in assisted reproduction cycles

BACKGROUND

The aspiration of the granulosa cells that surround the oocyte and the use of gonadotropin releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) during assisted reproduction technology (ART) treatment can interfere with the production, during the luteal phase, of progesterone, which is necessary for successful implantation of the embryo. Providing hormonal supplementation during the luteal phase with either progesterone itself, or human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), which stimulates progesterone production, may improve implantation and, thus, pregnancy rates.

OBJECTIVES

To determine (1) if luteal phase support after assisted reproduction increases the pregnancy rate, (2) the optimal hormone for luteal phase support, i.e. hCG, progesterone, or a combination of both, and (3) the optimal route of progesterone administration.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders & Subfertility Group trials register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1971 to Dec 2003), EMBASE (1985 to Dec 2003). We handsearched reference lists of relevant articles were scanned, and abstract books from scientific meetings up to December 2003.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials of luteal phase support after ART treatment, comparing hCG or progesterone with placebo or no treatment, comparing progesterone with hCG, progesterone plus hCG, or progesterone plus estrogen, or comparing different routes of progesterone administration. Quasi-randomized trials were excluded from the main analyses, but included in a secondary analysis for each comparison.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For each comparison, data on live birth, ongoing and clinical pregnancy per embryo or gamete transfer procedure, miscarriage per clinical pregnancy, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) per transfer, and multiple pregnancy per clinical pregnancy were extracted into 2 x 2 tables and subgrouped by use of GnRHa in the ovarian stimulation regimen. The odds ratio (OR) and risk difference (RD) were calculated.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-nine studies were included in the review. Luteal phase support with hCG provided significant benefit, compared to placebo or no treatment, in terms of increased ongoing pregnancy rates (odds ratio (OR) 2.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.32 to 4.29) and decreased miscarriage rates (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.50), but only when GnRHa was used. The odds of OHSS increased 20-fold when hCG was used in cycles with GnRHa. Progesterone use resulted in a small but significant increase in pregnancy rates (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.79) when trials with and without GnRHa were grouped together, but no effect on the miscarriage rate was observed. No significant difference was found between progesterone and hCG or between progesterone and progesterone plus hCG or estrogen in terms of pregnancy or miscarriage rates, but the odds of OHSS were more than 2-fold higher with treatments involving hCG than with progesterone alone(OR 3.06, 95% CI 1.59 to 5.86). Comparing routes of progesterone administration, reductions in clinical pregnancy rate with the oral route, compared to the intramuscular or vaginal routes, did not reach statistical significance, but there was evidence of benefit of the intramuscular over the vaginal route for the outcomes of ongoing pregnancy and live birth. No significant difference in pregnancy rate was observed between vaginal progesterone gel and other types of vaginal progesterone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Luteal phase support with hCG or progesterone after assisted reproduction results in an increased pregnancy rate. hCG does not provide better results than progesterone, and is associated with a greater risk of OHSS when used with GnRHa. The optimal route of progesterone administration has not yet been established.

Luteal supplementation in in vitro fertilization: more questions than answers

OBJECTIVE

To update clinicians on different regimens of luteal phase supplementation in IVF-stimulated cycles and to identify areas that need further research in this subject.

DESIGN

Literature review and critical analysis of published studies on luteal phase supplementation during the last 20 years.

CONCLUSION(S)

Luteal phase supplementation in IVF-stimulated cycles, both in gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist and antagonist protocols, is considered an essential requirement for optimal success rates. The date of initiation and discontinuation of supplemented hormones is not adequately studied in the literature. In most major controlled and randomized studies, there are no significant differences in success rates with progesterone supplementation alone, progesterone and estradiol, progesterone and human chorionic gonadotropin, and human chorionic gonadotropin alone. Success rates seem similar with intramuscular and vaginal progesterone administration with patient preference for the vaginal route. The optimal dose of progesterone has not been studied in a scientific way in the literature. The use of gonadotropin releasing hormone agonists for luteal phase supplementation in antagonist cycles appears to be promising, and is worthy of further investigation.

An update of luteal phase support in stimulated IVF cycles

Stimulated IVF cycles are associated with luteal phase defect. In order to overcome this, different doses, durations and types of luteal phase support (LPS) have been evaluated. There is still no agreement regarding the optimal supplementation scheme. The aim of this paper is to assess the past and the current clinical practices of luteal supplementation in IVF. The databases of Medline and PubMed were searched to identify relevant publications. LPS with human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) [n=262, odds ratio (OR) 2.72 (95%), confidence interval (CI) 1.56-4.90, P<0.05] or progesterone (n=260, OR 1.57 CI 1.13, 2.17, P<0.05) results in an increased pregnancy rate compared with placebo, however, hCG is associated with increased risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Natural micronized progesterone is not efficient if taken orally. The data on oral dydrogesterone are still conflicting. Vaginal and intra muscular progesterone have comparable outcomes. The addition of estradiol (E2) seems to be beneficial in long GnRH agonist protocol (implantation rate 39.6% with E2 compared with no E2; P<0.05) but not in the short GnRH agonist and GnRH antagonist protocol. Despite the early promising results, it is too early to recommend the use of GnRH agonist in LPS. LPS should cease on the day of positive HCG. Since the cause of luteal phase defect in IVF appears to be related to the supraphysiological levels of steroids, milder stimulation protocols should be advocated in order to eventually overcome the luteal phase defect.

Progesterone supplementation to prevent recurrent miscarriage and to reduce implantation failure in assisted reproduction cycles

Implantation failure has been questioned for many cases of recurrent miscarriage and unsuccessful assisted reproduction. The exact cause of implantation failure is not known, but luteal phase defect is encountered in many of these cases. Consequently, women with recurrent miscarriages have been treated with progesterone supplementation with various degrees of success, and a recent meta-analysis has shown trends for improved live birth rates in those women. Progesterone probably acts as an immunological suppressant blocking T-helper (Th)1 activity and inducing release of Th2 cytokines. Numerous studies have confirmed that ovarian stimulation used in assisted reproduction is associated with luteal phase insufficiency, even when gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists are used. In those patients, advanced endometrial histological maturity and a decrease in the concentration of cytoplasmic progesterone receptors are observed. Progesterone supplementation results in a trend towards improved ongoing and clinical pregnancy rates, except in patients treated with human menopausal gonadotrophin-only regimens, in whom ongoing pregnancy rates increase significantly. More randomized controlled trials are needed to increase the power of the currently available meta-analyses to further evaluate progesterone supplementation in both conditions.

Luteal phase support in assisted reproductive technology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to discuss luteal support in assisted reproduction and to provide an evidence-based overview of the current options available.

RECENT FINDINGS

The luteal phase has been found to be defective in virtually all of the stimulation protocols used for in-vitro fertilization. Common mechanisms such as supraphysiological levels of estradiol, decreased output of luteinizing hormone, inhibition of the corpus luteum and asynchronization of estradiol and progesterone may be involved in insufficient function of the corpus luteum in assisted reproductive technology.

SUMMARY

Gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist undoubtedly provides benefits in stimulated cycles, however it also has adverse effects, inhibition of the corpus luteum together with supraphysiological hormonal profiles finally leading to luteal phase defects. Luteal phase support with human chorionic gonadotropin or progesterone after assisted reproduction results in increased pregnancy rates. The role of luteal phase support in these cycles has also been recently elucidated. Use of human chorionic gonadotropin for luteal phase support is associated with a marked increase in the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, therefore progesterone is the preferred choice. Data on the benefits of estrogen supplementation are conflicting. Among the routes of progesterone administration, reductions in pregnancy rates are noted on oral administration. In spite of a lack of statistical significance, the intramuscular route seems to be more beneficial than the vaginal route when considering rates of ongoing pregnancy and live birth. Further clarification is needed on the ideal dose, the optimal route and the duration of progesterone administration in assisted reproduction.

Greater implantation and pregnancy rates with vaginal progesterone in intracytoplasmic sperm injection but not in in vitro fertilization cycles: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of vaginal progesterone supplementation with intramuscular supplementation in assisted reproduction cycles.

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SETTING

Physiopathology of Human Reproduction Unit, Pordenone, Italy, from July 2000 to June 2004.

PATIENT(S)

Three hundred and eight-five intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) procedures (188 with vaginal gel and 197 with intramuscular progesterone) and 373 in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles (227 with vaginal and 146 with intramuscular progesterone).

INTERVENTION(S)

Progesterone luteal supplementation: vaginal gel (Crinone 8% 90 mg/day) or intramuscular (Prontogest 50 mg/day).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Implantation rates, and total and clinical pregnancy rates.

RESULT(S)

Higher rates of implantation and total and clinical pregnancies were observed in the vaginal supplemented ICSI subgroup than in the intramuscular one. This difference was observed for all transfers (13.3% vs. 8.8%, 39.8% vs. 23.3%, and 28.7% vs. 18.6%) and for ultrasound-guided transfers (17.2% vs. 9.3%, 49% vs. 27%, and 36.9% vs. 21.1%, respectively).

CONCLUSION(S)

The vaginal route of luteal supplementation may be better than the intramuscular one, yielding higher implantation rates as well as total and clinical pregnancy rates in ICSI cycles but not in classic IVF treatments.

Transdermal progesterone creams for postmenopausal women: more hype than hope?

Various claims have been made about the benefits of transdermal progesterone creams for relieving symptoms of menopause. Peer-reviewed articles have reported that the creams can raise plasma progesterone levels slightly, but have no effect on vasomotor, psychosexual or mood symptoms, bone metabolism or plasma lipid levels. Currently available progesterone creams can not be recommended for treatment of symptoms associated with menopause.

17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate versus intravaginal progesterone in IVF-embryo transfer cycles: a prospective randomized study

One of the main issues in the management of IVF and embryo transfer techniques is to ensure adequate concentrations of progesterone. The aim of this prospective, randomized study was to compare the effectiveness of 17 alpha -hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17-HPC) administered intramuscularly and intra-vaginal progesterone in gel in luteal phase support in patients undergoing IVF-embryo transfer cycles. A total of 320 patients were randomly treated with either 17-HPC (341 mg i. m. every 3 days) or progesterone vaginal gel (90 mg daily). The inclusion criteria were the use of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone down-regulation and age <40 years. The outcome of IVF in both study groups was evaluated for implantation rate, biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and ongoing pregnancy rate. The results of this study showed that 17-HPC conferred more benefit to IVF-embryo transfer cycles compared with intra-vaginal progesterone, as demonstrated by the results of most of the main outcome parameters considered. The data showed that 17-HPC administered every 3 days appears to be more effective in providing luteal support in comparison to intra-vaginal progesterone.

Phytoestrogens may improve the pregnancy rate in in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer cycles: a prospective, controlled, randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of i.m. P and i.m. P plus oral phytoestrogens for luteal phase support in patients undergoing IVF-ET cycles.

DESIGN

Prospective, controlled, randomized trial.

SETTING

University Hospital, Perugia, Italy.

PATIENT(S)

Two hundred thirteen infertile patients undergoing IVF-ET were included in the study. The inclusion criteria were use of a GnRH agonist for pituitary down-regulation and age <40 years. The total number of cycles performed was 274.

INTERVENTION(S)

Patients were assigned to receive either i.m. P (50 mg daily) plus placebo or P (50 mg daily) plus phytoestrogen supplementation (1,500 mg daily) for luteal phase support starting from the evening of oocyte retrieval until either a serum pregnancy test result was negative or embryonic heartbeat was sonographically confirmed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

The outcomes of IVF-ET were evaluated in both study groups in terms of implantation rate, biochemical pregnancy rate (PR), clinical PR, spontaneous abortion rate, and ongoing pregnancy/delivered rate.

RESULT(S)

Statistically significant higher values for implantation rate, clinical PR, and ongoing pregnancy/delivered rate were recorded in the patients who received P plus phytoestrogens for luteal phase support in comparison with patients receiving P and placebo.

CONCLUSION(S)

Although the results of this study encourage the use of phytoestrogens for luteal phase support in patients undergoing IVF-ET program, more studies are necessary to support the hypothesis that phytoestrogens have a beneficial effect in IVF cycles.

Hormonal regulation of implantation

Implantation is a complex process that requires synchronization between the embryo and a receptive endometrium. Hormones, such as the female sex steroids, prostaglandins, and peptide hormones, regulate the cellular and molecular mediators of endometrial receptivity, which include pinopodes, cell adhesion molecules, cytokines, homeobox genes, and growth factors. These mediators can be altered, despite the presence of normal hormone levels and endometrial histology; this limits the usefulness of the luteal phase endometrial biopsy. Therefore, analysis of markers of endometrial receptivity may predict successful implantation better. Elevated androgen and estrogen levels, as seen with polycystic ovary syndrome and controlled ovarian hyperstimulation, respectively, also can have detrimental effects on the endometrium, and therefore, implantation.

Luteal phase support in assisted reproduction cycles

BACKGROUND

The aspiration of the granulosa cells that surround the oocyte and the use of gonadotropin releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) during assisted reproduction technology (ART) treatment can interfere with the production, during the luteal phase, of progesterone, which is necessary for successful implantation of the embryo. Providing hormonal supplementation during the luteal phase with either progesterone itself, or human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), which stimulates progesterone production, may improve implantation and, thus, pregnancy rates.

OBJECTIVES

To determine (1) if luteal phase support after assisted reproduction increases the pregnancy rate, (2) the optimal hormone for luteal phase support, i.e. hCG, progesterone, or a combination of both, and (3) the optimal route of progesterone administration.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders & Subfertility Group trials register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1971 to Dec 2003), EMBASE (1985 to Dec 2003). We handsearched reference lists of relevant articles were scanned, and abstract books from scientific meetings up to December 2003.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials of luteal phase support after ART treatment, comparing hCG or progesterone with placebo or no treatment, comparing progesterone with hCG, progesterone plus hCG, or progesterone plus estrogen, or comparing different routes of progesterone administration. Quasi-randomized trials were excluded from the main analyses, but included in a secondary analysis for each comparison.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For each comparison, data on live birth, ongoing and clinical pregnancy per embryo or gamete transfer procedure, miscarriage per clinical pregnancy, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) per transfer, and multiple pregnancy per clinical pregnancy were extracted into 2 x 2 tables and subgrouped by use of GnRHa in the ovarian stimulation regimen. The odds ratio (OR) and risk difference (RD) were calculated.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-nine studies were included in the review. Luteal phase support with hCG provided significant benefit, compared to placebo or no treatment, in terms of increased ongoing pregnancy rates (odds ratio (OR) 2.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.32 to 4.29) and decreased miscarriage rates (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.50), but only when GnRHa was used. The odds of OHSS increased 20-fold when hCG was used in cycles with GnRHa. Progesterone use resulted in a small but significant increase in pregnancy rates (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.79) when trials with and without GnRHa were grouped together, but no effect on the miscarriage rate was observed. No significant difference was found between progesterone and hCG or between progesterone and progesterone plus hCG or estrogen in terms of pregnancy or miscarriage rates, but the odds of OHSS were more than 2-fold higher with treatments involving hCG than with progesterone alone(OR 3.06, 95% CI 1.59 to 5.86). Comparing routes of progesterone administration, reductions in clinical pregnancy rate with the oral route, compared to the intramuscular or vaginal routes, did not reach statistical significance, but there was evidence of benefit of the intramuscular over the vaginal route for the outcomes of ongoing pregnancy and live birth. No significant difference in pregnancy rate was observed between vaginal progesterone gel and other types of vaginal progesterone.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Luteal phase support with hCG or progesterone after assisted reproduction results in an increased pregnancy rate. hCG does not provide better results than progesterone, and is associated with a greater risk of OHSS when used with GnRHa. The optimal route of progesterone administration has not yet been established.

Bleeding patterns in women using intramuscular progesterone for luteal support in in-vitro fertilisation cycles

This paper aims to evaluate the effects of i.m. progesterone on bleeding patterns after in-vitro fertilisation embryo transfer (IVF-ET). It is a retrospective cohort study conducted in the reproductive endocrinology and IVF department of a teaching hospital. One hundred consecutive women were studied who had undergone IVF-ET using 'long protocol' stimulation with leuprolide acetate-recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH) and who did not become pregnant. Intramuscular (i.m.) progesterone (50mg once daily) was started the day before oocyte retrieval and continued for a minimum of 12-14 days following embryo transfer. The main outcome measures were time interval between oocyte retrieval and onset of bleeding, luteal phase serum progesterone and oestradiol (E2) levels, and midluteal endometrial thickness. Of the 100 patients whose charts were reviewed, 67 bled (group A) before progesterone treatment was discontinued (17 days after oocyte retrieval) and 33 (group B) bled after progesterone treatment was discontinued (> 17 days). Mean onset of bleeding was 16.2+/-2.6 days after oocyte retrieval. Serum progesterone concentrations were similar in the two groups on the day of hCG administration, whereas progesterone concentrations (in-group B) were higher on days 7 and 15 after oocyte retrieval. No statistically significant differences were found between two groups with respect to mean midluteal endometrial thickness and mean serum E2 concentrations on days 0, 7 and 15. The results suggest that i.m progesterone administration for luteal support in assisted reproduction cycles elongates luteal phase in some patients due to supraphysiological serum progesterone levels. However, most patients start to bleed in the absence of pregnancy despite continued progesterone treatment.

Luteal phase support

Assisted reproductive techniques have become a routine treatment for infertility. The extended use of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues in assisted reproductive techniques has made luteal phase support mandatory, as it has been clearly demonstrated that they alter luteal LH pulsatility. For luteal support, HCG administration, though effective, has a high risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Progesterone continues to be the gold standard for supplementation. Vaginal progesterone represents a highly effective alternative to painful intramuscular injections. The vaginal route is mainly characterized by direct delivery of the progesterone to the endometrium, thus producing high levels at the target tissue and a very low incidence of side effects.

Estradiol supplementation during the luteal phase may improve the pregnancy rate in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer cycles

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of adding E(2) to progestin supplementation during the luteal phase on pregnancy and implantation rates in patients undergoing IVF cycles.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized study.

SETTING

An IVF unit in a university hospital.

PATIENT(S)

Patients who were undergoing IVF with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation using a GnRH analog and who had E(2)2,500 pg/dL at the time of hCG administration.

INTERVENTION(S)

Serum concentrations of E(2) and progesterone were measured in all patients on days 7, 10, and 12 after ET.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

The E(2) and progesterone profiles of the luteal phase and the pregnancy and implantation rates were documented. Data were analyzed for the entire study population and further stratified according to the GnRH analog protocol used (short or long).

RESULT(S)

Significantly higher E(2) levels were found during the luteal phase in the group that received E(2) supplementation. This effect was more pronounced in the patients who were treated with the long GnRH analog protocol. Significantly higher pregnancy and implantation rates were recorded in the patients who received E(2) supplementation and were treated with the long GnRH analog protocol.

CONCLUSION(S)

For patients who are treated with the long GnRH analog protocol for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation and for whom luteal support with hCG is contraindicated, the addition of E(2) to the progestin support regimen may have a beneficial effect on pregnancy and implantation rates.

Effects of penetration enhancers on the in-vitro percutaneous absorption of progesterone

Because progesterone seems suitable for treatment of premenstrual syndrome, the influence of penetration enhancers such as propylene glycol, urea and laurocapram (Azone) on the percutaneous absorption of progesterone from carbopol hydroalcoholic gels and from poly(ethylene glycol) ointments has been investigated. Skin experiments were performed using excized abdominal rat and porcine skin. Addition of 10% laurocapram was found to be the most efficient enhancer for progesterone from carbopol hydroalcoholic gels, for both rat and porcine skin; the next most efficient enhancer was urea in poly(ethylene glycol) bases. This enhanced the diffusion rates 2.5 fold, compared with pure poly(ethylene glycol) alone. The results show that hydroalcoholic gels and poly(ethylene glycol) ointments are both suitable vehicles for progesterone and that premenstrual syndrome might be treated effectively by use of hydroalcoholic gels containing 10% laurocapram.