Effects of estradiol supplementation during the luteal phase of in vitro fertilization cycles: a meta-analysis

Effect of estradiol supplementation on luteal support following a significant reduction in serum estradiol levels after hCG triggering: a prospective randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of adding 4 mg estradiol valerate to progesterone for luteal support on pregnancy rates in IVF cycles following a long protocol with reduced luteal serum estradiol levels post-hCG triggering.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted at a public tertiary hospital reproductive center with 241 patients who experienced a significant decrease in serum estrogen levels post-oocyte retrieval.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants received either a daily 4 mg dose of estradiol valerate in addition to standard progesterone or standard progesterone alone for luteal support.

RESULTS

The ongoing pregnancy rate did not show a significant difference between the E2 group and the control group (56.6% vs. 52.2%, with an absolute rate difference (RD) of 4.4%, 95% CI -0.087 to 0.179, P = 0.262). Similarly, the live birth rate, implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, early abortion rate, and severe OHSS rate were comparable between the two groups. Notably, the E2 group had no biochemical miscarriages, contrasting significantly with the control group (0.0% vs. 10.7%, RD -10.7%, 95% CI -0.178 to -0.041, P = 0.000). In the blastocyst stage category, the clinical pregnancy rate was notably higher in the E2 group compared to the control group (75.6% vs. 60.8%, RD 14.9%, 95% CI 0.012 to 0.294, P = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

Adding 4 mg estradiol valerate to progesterone for luteal support does not affect the ongoing pregnancy rate in embryo transfer cycles using a long protocol with a significant decrease in serum estradiol levels after hCG triggering. However, it may reduce biochemical miscarriages and positively impact clinical pregnancy rates in blastocyst embryo transfer cycles.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR1800020342.

Estrogen in Luteal Phase Support: Effects on IVF-ICSI Antagonist Protocol Pregnancy Results

Aim: This study aimed to investigate the effect of luteal phase support (LPS) with estradiol in addition to progesterone on pregnancy outcomes in patients who underwent ovulation induction with GnRH antagonist protocol in in vitro fertilization- intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF-ICSI). Materials and Methods: This retrospective study was carried out at reproductive medicine center of Necmettin Erbakan University Meram Medical Faculty. The study enrolled 128 patients undergoing ICSI on an antagonist protocol for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Study group administered 7.8 mg transdermal estradiol (E2) daily in addition to progesterone for LPS (n=64). Control group administered only progesterone for LPS (n=64). All women received 200 mg progesterone 3x1 intravaginal daily and 50 mg progesterone intramuscular injection per two days for LPS. Blood samples were drawn 12 days after embryo transfer for β-hCG. If the result is negative, treatment was discontinued, if positive, estradiol was discontinued and progesterone support was continued until the 10th week of gestation. Pregnancy outcomes were the main endpoint. Results: There was no difference between groups in terms of biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, abortus and ongoing pregnancy rates. Conclusion: In our study, the use of estrogen for luteal phase support in GnRH antagonist protocol did not show any difference on pregnancy outcomes.

Individualized luteal phase support after fresh embryo transfer: unanswered questions, a review

Background

Luteal phase support (LPS) is an important part of assisted reproductive technology (ART), and adequate LPS is crucial for embryo implantation. At present, a great number of studies have put emphasis on an individualized approach to controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) and endometrium preparation of frozen- thawed embryo transfer (FET); However, not much attention has been devoted to the luteal phase and almost all ART cycles used similar LPS protocol bases on experience.

Main body

This review aims to concisely summarize individualized LPS protocols in fresh embryo transfer cycles with hCG trigger or GnRH-a trigger. The PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched using the keywords: (luteal phase support or LPS) AND (assisted reproductive technology or ART or in vitro fertilization or IVF). We performed comprehensive literature searches in the English language describing the luteal phase support after ART, since 1978 and ending in May 2019. Recent studies have shown that many modified LPS programs were used in ART cycle. In the cycle using hCG for final oocyte maturation, the progesterone with or without low dose of hCG may be adequate to maintain pregnancy. In the cycle using GnRH-a for trigger, individualized low dose of hCG administration with or without progesterone was suggested. The optimal timing to start the LPS would be between 24 and 72 h after oocyte retrieval and should last at least until the pregnancy test is positive. Addition of E₂ and the routes of progesterone administration bring no beneficial effect on the outcomes after ART.

Conclusions

Individualized LPS should be applied, according to the treatment protocol, the patients’ specific characteristics, and desires.

Luteal phase support (LPS) is an important part of assisted reproductive technology (ART). In the cycle using hCG for final oocyte maturation, the progesterone with or without low dose of hCG may be adequate to maintain pregnancy. In the cycle using GnRH-a for trigger, individualized low dose of hCG administration with or without progesterone was suggested. The optimal timing to start the LPS would be between 24 and 72 h after oocyte retrieval and should last at least until the pregnancy test is positive. Addition of E₂ and the routes of progesterone administration bring no beneficial effect on the outcomes after ART. Individualized LPS should be applied, according to the treatment protocol, the patients’ specific characteristics, and desires.

Combined use of oestradiol and progesterone to support luteal phase in antagonist intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles of normoresponder women: a case-control study

We evaluated the effect of combined use of oral oestrogen (E2) and vaginal progesterone (P) to support luteal phase in antagonist intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles. We analysed data from 176 patients who underwent ICSI cycles with antagonist protocol. P 90 mg vaginal gel once a day and micronised E2 of 4 mg/day, were started from the day of oocyte pick up and continued to the 12th day of embryo transfer. Group 1 (n = 79) patients received E2 + P for luteal phase support. In group 2 (n = 97) patients, only P 90 mg vaginal gel was used for luteal phase support. There were no significant differences between group 1 and group 2 patients in terms of clinical pregnancy rates (PRs) (26.58% vs. 20.62%, p = .352), early pregnancy loss rates (6.33% vs. 6.19%, p = .969), incidence of luteal vaginal bleeding (8.86% vs. 8.25%, p = .885) and implantation rates (22.8% vs. 16.9%, p = .298). In conclusion, our study showed no beneficial effect of addition of E2 to luteal phase support on clinical PR in antagonist IVF cycles.Impact statementWhat is already known on this subject? Luteal phase deficiency is defined as a disruption in progesterone and oestrogen production after ovulation. It is clear that, luteal phase supplementation to improve the outcomes in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycles is mandatory. As an iatrogenic complication of assisted reproductive technique, decreased luteal oestrogen and progesterone levels lead to decreased pregnancy rates (PRs) and implantation rates.What the results of this study add? In this study, we aimed to present the role of luteal phase oestrogen administration in GnRH antagonist cycles. A total of 176 cases received progesterone vaginal gel form for luteal phase support. Study group received 4 mg oral oestradiol hemihydrate in addition to progesterone. Compared to previous studies, our study consisted of larger number of patients and we used oestradiol through oral route. We found out that luteal oestradiol support did not improve the clinical PR.What the implications are of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Our study showed no beneficial effect of addition of oestradiol to luteal phase support on clinical PR in antagonist IVF cycles.

A comparison of the effects of three luteal phase support protocols with estrogen on in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer outcomes in patients on a GnRH antagonist protocol

Objective:

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of three different luteal phase support protocols with estrogen on the pregnancy rates and luteal phase hormone profiles of patients undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) cycles. A secondary objective was to evaluate which ovarian reserve markers correlated with pregnancy rates.

Methods:

This retrospective observational study was carried out at a private tertiary reproductive medicine teaching and research center. The study enrolled 104 patients undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) on an antagonist protocol for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH). The women were divided into three groups based on the route of administration of estrogen (E2) for luteal phase support: oral (Primogyna); transdermal patches (Estradott); or transdermal gel (Oestrogel Pump). The administration of estrogen provided the equivalent to 4 mg of estradiol daily. All women received 600mg of vaginal progesterone (P) per day (Utrogestan) for luteal phase support. Blood samples were drawn on the day of hCG administration and on the day of beta hCG testing to measure E2 and P levels. Clinical pregnancy rate (PR) was the main endpoint.

Results:

The patients included in the three groups were comparable. No significant differences were found in implantation rates, clinical PR, miscarriage rates, multiple-pregnancy rates, E2 or P levels on the day of beta hCG measurement. Concerning ovarian reserve markers, significant correlations between testing positive for clinical pregnancy and AMH (r = 0.66, p<0.0001) and E2 levels on beta hCG measurement day (r = 0.77; p<.0001) were observed.

Conclusions:

No significant differences were seen in the pregnancy rates of patients submitted to IVF-ET cycles with GnRH antagonists given oral, transdermal patches, or transdermal gel E2 during the luteal phase. A correlation was found between clinical pregnancy rate and AMH and E2 levels on beta hCG testing day.

Evaluation of progestogen supplementation for luteal phase support in fresh in vitro fertilization cycles

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of progestogen supplementation in improving clinical pregnancy rates in women undergoing fresh IVF cycles and to compare different routes, start times, durations, and estrogen coadministration regimen.

DESIGN

Comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.

SETTING

University.

PATIENT(S)

Women undergoing fresh IVF cycles who did and did not receive progestogen supplementation.

INTERVENTION(S)

Summary odds ratios (ORs) were calculated by binomial logistic regression.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Clinical pregnancy rates.

RESULT(S)

Eighty-two articles (26,726 women) were included. Clinical pregnancy rates were increased by IM (OR = 4.57), vaginal (OR = 3.34), SC (OR = 3.36), or oral (OR = 2.57) progestogen supplementation versus no treatment. The greatest benefit was observed when progestogens were supplemented IM versus vaginally (OR = 1.37). The optimal time to commence administration was between oocyte retrieval and ET (OR = 1.31), with oocyte retrieval +1 day being most beneficial. Coadministration of estrogen had no benefit (OR = 1.33), whether progestogens were coadministered vaginally or IM. Clinical pregnancy rates were equivalent when progestogen supplementation was ceased after ≤3 weeks or continued for up to 12 weeks (OR = 1.06).

CONCLUSION(S)

This broad-ranging meta-analysis highlights the need to reevaluate current clinical practice. The use of progestogens in fresh IVF cycles is substantially beneficial to clinical pregnancy. Critically, the use of IM progestogens should not be dismissed, as it yielded the greatest clinical pregnancy rates. Pregnancy success was impacted by initiation of therapy, with 1 day after oocyte retrieval being optimal. There is little evidence to support coadministration of estrogen or prolonging progestogen treatment beyond 3 weeks.

Plasmatic estradiol concentration in the mid-luteal phase is a good prognostic factor for clinical and ongoing pregnancies, during stimulated cycles of in vitro fertilization

Objective

To evaluate the predictive efficiency of serum estradiol (E₂) concentration in the mid-luteal phase regarding chemical, clinical, and ongoing pregnancies, in patients subjected to IVF/ICSI with fresh embryo transfer.

Methods

One hundred and forty-three patients undergoing IVF/ICSI met all the inclusion criteria for the present study. Most of the patients used antagonists, final maturation was achieved with recombinant chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG), and embryo transfer took place on days 3 to 5, but mostly on day 4. The luteal phase was supplemented with estradiol valerate 6 mg/day and vaginal micronized progesterone 600 mg/day. There was no exclusion of patients in the embryo transfer group due to age or ovarian reserve. All patients with estradiol and chorionic gonadotrophin (βHCG) dosage on the day of transfer, day 7, were included. We assessed the following variables, initially regarding age: number of eggs collected, formed embryos, embryos transferred, day of transfer, transfer type, estradiol and chorionic gonadotropin. Next, we evaluated these elements at three different ranges of estradiol concentrations (<200 pg/ml, 200-500 pg/ml, and >500 pg/ml), comparing these parameters in pregnant (P) and non-pregnant (NP) patients.

Results

Data analysis by age group in P and NP patients showed significant differences in the mean values of the variables E₂ and βHCG, TD7. Mean serum estradiol levels in P and NP in the three age groups were: <35years, 835/417 p=0.0006, 35-39 years 833/434 p=0.0118, >39 years, 841/394 p=0.0012. There was also a significant difference in pregnancy rates in the group >500 pg/ml of estradiol concentration (63.4%, p=0.0096). The likelihood of chemical and clinical abortions for the estradiol ranges were: 38.46%, involving the two first ranges versus 15.15% for a concentration >500 pg/ml, p=0.0412 and 5.26% for a concentration >900 pg/ml, p=0.0105. The Pearson correlation coefficient for HCG and estradiol was r = 0.5108.

Conclusion

This study showed the prognostic value of E₂ in the mid-luteal phase (TD7) for chemical, clinical, and ongoing pregnancies, and its concentration suggested that there is a moderately positive correlation with βHCG levels.

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.

Vaginal micronized progesterone capsule versus vaginal progesterone gel for lutheal support in normoresponder IVF/ICSI-ET cycles

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcomes of luteal phase support by micronized progesteron vaginal capsule 600mg/day and progesterone vaginal gel 180mg/day in the normoresponder IVF/ICSI-ET cycles of the patients down-regulated via GnRH agonist long protocol or fixed antagonist protocol below 40 years of age.

METHODS

A total of 463 normoresponder cycles between January 2013 and December 2013 were retrospectively analyzed. Those with a BMI>28 kg/m(2), any kind of uterine, ovarian or adnexial pathology, any significant systemic, endocrine or metabolic disease or who were reported as azoospermia, were excluded from the study. The patients were grouped according to the usage of micronized progesterone vaginal capsule 600mg/day (Group 1) or progesterone vaginal gel 180mg/day (Group 2) as luteal phase support. Treatment cycle characteristics and pregnancy outcomes were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Group-I included 220 cycles and group 2 included 243 cycles. Although the MII oocyte percentage among the total number of MII oocytes was significantly higher in Group-II (77.5% and 80.2%; p=0.034), positive ß-hCG (32.3% and 21.8%; p=0.015) and clinical pregnancy (27.3% and 17.7%; p=0.018) rates were significantly higher in Group-I. No difference was observed between groups regarding the ongoing pregnancy rates (23.2% and 17.3%; p=0.143).

CONCLUSION

Micronized progesterone vaginal capsule 600mg daily used for luteal support in the IVF/ICSI-ET cycles was observed to significantly increase the biochemical and clinical pregnancy rates compared to progesterone vaginal gel 180mg daily. However, no difference was observed between two groups regarding ongoing pregnancy rates.

Estrogen supplementation to progesterone as luteal phase support in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization: systematic review and meta-analysis

Meta-analyses have found conflicting results with respect to the use of progesterone or progesterone plus estrogen as luteal phase support for in vitro fertilization (IVF) protocols involving gonadotropins and/or gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs. The aim of the present study was to perform an updated meta-analysis on the efficacy of progesterone versus progesterone plus estrogen as luteal phase support. We searched the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases (up to March 18, 2014). The search terms were (estrogen OR estradiol OR oestradiol) AND (progesterone) AND (IVF OR in vitro fertilization) AND (randomized OR prospective). We did not limit the form of estrogen and included subjects who contributed more than 1 cycle to a study. The primary outcome was clinical pregnancy rate. Secondary outcomes were ongoing pregnancy rate, fertilization rate, implantation rate, and miscarriage rate. A total of 11 articles were included in the present analysis, with variable numbers of studies assessing each outcome measure. Results of statistical analyses indicated that progesterone plus estrogen treatment was more likely to result in clinical pregnancy than progesterone alone (pooled odds ratio 1.617, 95% confidence interval 1.059-2.471; P = 0.026). No significant difference between the 2 treatment regimens was found for the other outcome measures. Progesterone plus estrogen for luteal phase support is associated with a higher clinical pregnancy rate than progesterone alone in women undergoing IVF, but other outcomes such as ongoing pregnancy rate, fertilization rate, implantation rate, and miscarriage rate are the same for both treatments.

Meta-analysis of estradiol for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether the addition of E(2) for luteal phase support (LPS) in IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) could improve the outcome of clinical pregnancy.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

SETTING

University hospital center.

PATIENT(S)

Women underwent IVF or ICSI using the GnRH agonist or GnRH antagonist protocol.

INTERVENTION(S)

Progesterone alone or combined with E(2) for LPS.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Clinical pregnancy rate per patient (CPR/PA), clinical pregnancy rate per ET, implantation rate, ongoing pregnancy rate per patient, clinical abortion rate, and ectopic pregnancy rate.

RESULT(S)

Fifteen relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified that included a total of 2,406 patients. There was no statistical difference between E(2) + P group and P-only group regarding the primary outcome of CPR/PA for different routes of administration of E(2) (oral, vaginal, and transdermal) or other relevant outcome measures. No significant effect was observed for different daily doses of E(2) (6, 4, and 2 mg), even through oral medication in CPR/PA.

CONCLUSION(S)

The best available evidence suggests that E(2) addition during the luteal phase does not improve IVF/ICSI outcomes through oral medication, even with different daily doses. Furthermore, RCTs that study other administration routes are needed.

Luteal phase support with estrogen in addition to progesterone increases pregnancy rates in in vitro fertilization cycles with poor response to gonadotropins

In this study, our objective was to determine the effect of adding estradiol hemihydrate (E2) to progestin (P) for luteal phase support on pregnancy outcome in in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles with poor response to gonadotropins. Ninety-five women with poor ovarian response who underwent controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) with gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist or GnRH antagonist plus gonadotropin protocol for IVF were prospectively randomized into three groups of luteal phase support after oocyte retrieval. Group 1 (n = 33) received only intravaginal progesterone gel (Crinone 8% gel). Group 2 (n = 27) and Group 3 (n = 35) received intravaginal progesterone plus oral 2 and 6 mg estradiol hemihydrate, respectively. Main outcome measures were overall and clinical pregnancy rates (PRs) per patient. Serum LH, E2 and P levels at 7th and 14th days of luteal phase were also measured. Overall and clinical PRs were significantly higher in 2 mg E2 + P than P-only group (44% versus 18% and 37% versus 12.1%, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences between 6 mg E2 + P versus P-only and 2 mg E2 + P versus 6 mg E2 + P groups regarding PRs. Addition of 2 mg/day E2 in addition to P for luteal support significantly increase overall and clinical PRs in cycles with poor response to gonadotropins after IVF.

Assisted reproductive techniques

Assisted reproductive technologies (ART) encompass fertility treatments, which involve manipulations of both oocyte and sperm in vitro. This chapter provides a brief overview of ART, including indications for treatment, ovarian reserve testing, selection of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) protocols, laboratory techniques of ART including in vitro fertilization (IVF), and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), embryo transfer techniques, and luteal phase support. This chapter also discusses potential complications of ART, namely ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and multiple gestations, and the perinatal outcomes of ART.

Estradiol supplementation in intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles with thin endometrium

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of estradiol supplementation starting on the day of human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) in patients with thin endometrium in intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles.

METHODS

A total of 117 consecutive patients with the endometrial thickness on the hCG day ≤ 8 mm were reviewed. Estradiol supplementation was given in 57 patients and the remaining 60 patients were accepted as control group. Estradiol supplemented (ES) group received estradiol hemihydrate 4 mg/day started on the day of hCG. Luteal phase was supported using the vaginal progesterone gel in both groups. Clinical pregnancy rate, implantation rate, miscarriage rate, endometrial thickness on the day of oocyte pick-up and on the day of embryo transferred were accepted as main outcome measures.

RESULTS

There were no statistical differences in terms of clinical pregnancy rate (28.1% vs. 23.3%), implantation rate (16% vs. 10.4%), miscarriage rate (21% vs. 31.6%), endometrial thickness on the oocyte pick-up day (8.5 ± 1.8 vs. 8.4 ± 1.4, mm) and embryo transferred day (9.6 ± 2.9 vs. 10.3 ± 2.4, mm) in the ES group vs. control group.

CONCLUSION

Estradiol supplementation starting on the hCG day for the patients with thin endometrium does not provide any benefit on the pregnancy outcome in ICSI cycles.

Oral oestradiol supplementation as luteal support in IVF/ICSI cycles: a prospective, randomized controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To explore whether oral oestradiol (E2) supplementation (6 mg) in the luteal phase is beneficial to the outcome of patients undergoing gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) long protocol in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, controlled study at the IVF Clinic, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital. In total, 402 patients with an indication for IVF or ICSI were recruited. Patients were prospectively randomized to receive either progesterone injection plus oral E2 supplementation (Group A, n=202) or progesterone injection alone (Group B, n=200) as luteal support after oocyte retrieval. The main outcome measure was the clinical pregnancy rate.

RESULTS

No significant difference in the clinical pregnancy rate or miscarriage rate was observed between Group A and Group B (50.9% vs 58.0%, 14.6% vs 11.2%; p>0.05). In different age subgroups (≤35 years and >35 years) all measurements were comparable in patients with or without E2 supplementation, as well as in subgroups with different E2 levels on the day of human chorionic gonadotrophin injection (E2≥3000 pg/ml and E2<3000 pg/ml).

CONCLUSION

Adding E2 as luteal support did not increase the clinical pregnancy rate or reduce the miscarriage rate. Routine use of a combination of E2 and progesterone as luteal support in GnRHa long protocol IVF/ICSI cycles is not recommended.

Endocrinological insights into different in vitro fertilization treatment aspects

The science of reproductive endocrinology/in vitro fertilization (IVF) has moved forward considerably since the first IVF baby was born in 1978. IVF was originally indicated for women with tubal factor infertility, but it has now become the treatment for couples with unexplained subfertility, male subfertility, cervical factor, failed ovulation induction, endometriosis or unilateral tubal pathology. IVF was initially performed with the single dominant ovarian follicle produced during a spontaneous menstrual cycle. This was very inefficient and pregnancy rates were dismal. Consequently, superovulation protocols using parenteral gonadotrophins to induce maturation of multiple follicles were soon adopted worldwide. In addition, any supernumerary embryos remaining after embryo transfer may be cryopreserved for future embryo transfers without the need for another fresh IVF cycle. A greater understanding of IVF endocrinology has led to improved IVF pregnancy outcomes and satisfaction for the anxious parents. However, with the greater success of IVF treatment, new complications associated with the treatment arise, namely the ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Ovarian hyperstimulation can be associated with severe morbidity and may be even fatal. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome is an iatrogenic condition secondary to medical stimulation of the ovary, and was virtually unknown until IVF treatment was initiated. This article will discuss the recent developments in IVF treatment endocrinology and protocols, as well as prevention/treatment of its complications.

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.

The degree of serum estradiol decline in early and midluteal phase had no adverse effect on IVF/ICSI outcome

BACKGROUND:

Estradiol levels fall rapidly in the luteal phase of ART cycles. So far, the effect of this estradiol decline on pregnancy outcome has remained controversial.

AIM:

To study the effect of early and midluteal estradiol decline on pregnancy and miscarriage rate. We also sought to determine whether estradiol fall was related to increased risk of bleeding per vagina in the first trimester among pregnancies which crossed 12 weeks.

SETTING:

Tertiary Assisted conception center.

DESIGN:

Retrospective study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

We analyzed data of 360 consecutive patients who underwent IVF-ET/ICSI cycles using one of the three protocols: Midluteal downregulation, short flare, and antagonist protocol.

STATISTICAL METHODS:

Statistical evaluation was performed with the Student's t test, Chi square, Fischer's exact test, analysis of variance, and Mann-Whitney tests were appropriate using SPSS for Windows, Standard version 11.0.

RESULTS:

The mean % EL-E2 and % ML-E2 declines were not significantly different in the pregnant and nonpregnant groups when analyzed separately in the three protocols. Also, the degree of midluteal estradiol decline did not correlate with pregnancy outcome. Moreover, the mean % early and midluteal estradiol decline did not differ significantly in patients with preclinical, clinical abortions, and ongoing pregnancy. The estradiol decline was not found to influence the risk of bleeding in the first trimester.

CONCLUSIONS:

Our results show that the degree of estradiol fall in the luteal phase of ART cycles does not influence pregnancy and first trimester miscarriage rate.

GnRH agonist for triggering of final oocyte maturation: time for a change of practice?

BACKGROUND

GnRH agonist (GnRHa) triggering has been shown to significantly reduce the occurrence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) compared with hCG triggering; however, initially a poor reproductive outcome was reported after GnRHa triggering, due to an apparently uncorrectable luteal phase deficiency. Therefore, the challenge has been to rescue the luteal phase. Studies now report a luteal phase rescue, with a reproductive outcome comparable to that seen after hCG triggering.

METHODS

This narrative review is based on expert presentations and subsequent group discussions supplemented with publications from literature searches and the authors' knowledge. Moreover, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified and analysed either in fresh IVF cycles with embryo transfer (ET), oocyte donation cycles or cycles without ET; risk differences were calculated regarding pregnancy rate and OHSS rate.

RESULTS

In fresh IVF cycles with ET (9 RCTs) no OHSS was reported after GnRHa triggering [0% incidence in the GnRHa group: risk difference 5% (with 95% CI: -0.07 to 0.02)]. Importantly, the delivery rate improved significantly after modified luteal support [6% risk difference in favour of the HCG group (95% CI: -0.14 to 0.2)] when compared with initial studies with conventional luteal support [18% risk difference (95% CI: -0.36 to 0.01)]. In oocyte donation cycles (4 RCTs) the OHSS incidence is 0% [10% risk difference (95% CI: 0.02-0.40)].

CONCLUSIONS

GnRHa triggering is a valid alternative to hCG triggering, resulting in an elimination of OHSS. After modified luteal support there is now a non-significant difference of 6% in delivery rate in favour of hCG triggering.

The effect of adding oral oestradiol to progesterone as luteal phase support in ART cycles - a randomized controlled study

INTRODUCTION

Luteal phase support in assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles is still controversial. The present study was conducted to evaluate the effect of adding oral oestradiol to progesterone during ART cycles.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this prospective case control study, infertile women under 35 years old who were candidates for IVF/ICSI cycles in Royan Institute were enrolled. A long gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist protocol was used for ovarian stimulation. Patients were randomly divided into two groups for luteal phase support: the control group received vaginal administration of progesterone supplementation alone starting on the day after oocyte retrieval and continued until the tenth week if the chemical pregnancy test was positive. In the oestradiol group, 2 mg of oestradiol valerate was initiated orally with progesterone. The control group received a placebo instead of oestradiol.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight women were studied as oestradiol (N = 47) and control groups (N= 51). There were no significant differences in the mean number of retrieved oocytes, number of transferred embryos, or chemical and clinical pregnancy rates between the two groups. Although the serum progesterone concentration was higher in the oestradiol group in comparison to the control group on day 7, 10 and 12 after embryo transfer, these differences were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggested that adding oral oestradiol to vaginal progesterone supplementation does not improve the chemical and clinical pregnancy rates of IVF/ICSI cycles.