Weekly intramuscular progesterone for luteal phase support in women receiving oocyte donation is associated with a decreased miscarriage rate

[Impact of donor parity on oocyte donation outcomes]

OBJECTIVES

Since 2015, in France, men and women who have never procreated are allowed to donate their gametes. This has led to an increase in the number of female oocyte donors, whereas there are many couples waiting for gametes that have a long waiting time. The aim of this study is to compare the results of donation with oocytes from nulliparous and non-nulliparous donors.

METHODS

Monocentric retrospective observational study (Lille University Hospital) between January 1st, 2016 and December 31st, 2019. Phenotypic characteristics and clinical and biological outcomes of oocytes donations were compared according to donor parity (nulliparous versus primiparous or multiparous).

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty-five donors (66 nulliparous and 119 non-nulliparous) were included in the study, allowing 284 ICSI cycles to be performed in recipient couples. On average, 11.5 oocytes were obtained per donation cycle, of which 7.8 were mature. In total, 4.6 mature oocytes were obtained per attempt and per recipient couple. Nulliparous donors are younger than non-nulliparous ones. An early pregnancy was obtained in 55.6% of the nulliparous donors and in 50.8% of the non-nulliparous donors (P=0.55). A progressive pregnancy was obtained in 49.2% of the nulliparous women and in 42.1% of the non-nulliparous women (P=0.36). There was therefore no difference in terms of early pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy whether the donation came from a nulliparous or non-nulliparous woman.

CONCLUSION

Donor parity does not seem to have an impact on the success of oocyte donation attempts.

Progesterone Hypersensitivity in Assisted Reproductive Technologies: Implications for Safety and Efficacy

The global rise in the age of childbirth, influenced by changing sociodemographic patterns, has had a notable impact on fertility rates. Simultaneously, assisted reproductive techniques (ARTs) have become increasingly prevalent due to advancements in reproductive medicine. The paper explores the intersection between the surge in ARTs and the rising number of iatrogenic autoimmune progesterone dermatitis (APD). Autoimmune progesterone dermatitis, commonly known as progesterone hypersensitivity, manifests itself as a mucocutaneous hypersensitivity syndrome. It is characterized by a wide range of dermatological symptoms, with urticaria and maculopapular rashes being the most prominent signs. Concurrently, systemic symptoms, such as fever, angioedema, and, in severe instances, anaphylaxis, may ensue. This dermatologic condition poses a significant challenge to women of childbearing age. This intricate syndrome frequently manifests itself in conjunction with menstruation or pregnancy as a reaction to physiological fluctuations in endogenous progesterone. However, given that exposure to exogenous progesterone is an integral component of various modern therapies, secondary APD has also been described. Our findings unveil a heightened likelihood of developing secondary progesterone hypersensitivity in ART patients that is attributed to the administration of exogenous progesterone through intramuscular, intravaginal, and oral routes. The study also explores available therapeutic interventions for facilitating viable pregnancies in individuals grappling with autoimmune progesterone dermatitis within the context of ARTs. This comprehensive analysis contributes valuable insights into the intricate relationship between reproductive technologies, dermatological challenges, and successful pregnancy outcomes.

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Low Luteal Serum Progesterone Levels Are Associated With Lower Ongoing Pregnancy and Live Birth Rates in ART: Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses

Progesterone plays a key role in implantation. Several studies reported that lower luteal progesterone levels might be related to decreased chances of pregnancy. This systematic review was conducted using appropriate key words, on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, from 1990 up to March 2021 to assess if luteal serum progesterone levels are associated with ongoing pregnancy (OP) and live birth (LB) rates (primary outcomes) and miscarriage rate (secondary outcome), according to the number of corpora lutea (CLs). Overall 2,632 non-duplicate records were identified, of which 32 relevant studies were available for quantitative analysis. In artificial cycles with no CL, OP and LB rates were significantly decreased when the luteal progesterone level falls below a certain threshold (risk ratio [RR] 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-0.84 and 0.73; 95% CI 0.59-0.90, respectively), while the miscarriage rate was increased (RR 1.48; 95% CI 1.17-1.86). In stimulated cycles with several CLs, the mean luteal progesterone level in the no OP and no LB groups was significantly lower than in the OP and LB groups [difference in means 68.8 (95% CI 45.6-92.0) and 272.4 (95% CI 10.8-533.9), ng/ml, respectively]. Monitoring luteal serum progesterone levels could help in individualizing progesterone administration to enhance OP and LB rates, especially in cycles without corpus luteum.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=139019, identifier 139019.

Individualised luteal phase support in artificially prepared frozen embryo transfer cycles based on serum progesterone levels: a prospective cohort study

STUDY QUESTION

Does an individualised luteal phase support (iLPS), according to serum progesterone (P4) level the day prior to euploid frozen embryo transfer (FET), improve pregnancy outcomes when started on the day previous to embryo transfer?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Patients with low serum P4 the day prior to euploid FET can benefit from the addition of daily subcutaneous P4 injections (Psc), when started the day prior to FET, and achieve similar reproductive outcomes compared to those with initial adequate P4 levels.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The ratio between FET/IVF has spectacularly increased in the last years mainly thanks to the pursuit of an ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome free clinic and the development of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT). There is currently a big concern regarding the endometrial preparation for FET, especially in relation to serum P4 levels around the time of embryo transfer. Several studies have described impaired pregnancy outcomes in those patients with low P4 levels around the time of FET, considering 10 ng/ml as one of the most accepted reference values. To date, no prospective study has been designed to compare the reproductive outcomes between patients with adequate P4 the day previous to euploid FET and those with low, but restored P4 levels on the transfer day after iLPS through daily Psc started on the day previous to FET.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A prospective observational study was conducted at a university-affiliated fertility centre between November 2018 and January 2020 in patients undergoing PGT for aneuploidies (PGT-A) IVF cycles and a subsequent FET under hormone replacement treatment (HRT). A total of 574 cycles (453 patients) were analysed: 348 cycles (leading to 342 euploid FET) with adequate P4 on the day previous to FET, and 226 cycles (leading to 220 euploid FET) under iLPS after low P4 on the previous day to FET, but restored P4 levels on the transfer day.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Overall we included 574 HRT FET cycles (453 patients). Standard HRT was used for endometrial preparation. P4 levels were measured the day previous to euploid FET. P4 > 10.6 ng/ml was considered as adequate and euploid FET was performed on the following day (FET Group 1). P4 < 10.6 ng/ml was considered as low, iLPS was added in the form of daily Psc injections, and a new P4 analysis was performed on the following day. FET was only performed on the same day when a restored P4 > 10.6 ng/ml was achieved (98.2% of cases) (FET Group 2).

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Patient's demographics and cycle parameters were comparable between both euploid FET groups (FET Group 1 and FET Group 2) in terms of age, weight, oestradiol and P4 levels and number of embryos transferred. No statistically significant differences were found in terms of clinical pregnancy rate (56.4% vs 59.1%: rate difference (RD) -2.7%, 95% CI [-11.4; 6.0]), ongoing pregnancy rate (49.4% vs 53.6%: RD -4.2%, 95% CI [-13.1; 4.7]) or live birth rate (49.1% vs 52.3%: RD -3.2%, 95% CI [-12; 5.7]). No significant differences were also found according to miscarriage rate (12.4% vs 9.2%: RD 3.2%, 95% CI [-4.3; 10.7]).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Only iLPS through daily Psc was evaluated. The time for Psc injection was not stated and no serum P4 determinations were performed once the pregnancy was achieved.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Our study provides information regarding an 'opportunity window' for improved ongoing pregnancy rates and miscarriage rates through a daily Psc injection in cases of inadequate P4 levels the day previous to FET (P4 < 10.6 ng/ml) and restored values the day of FET (P4 > 10.6 ng/ml). Only euploid FET under HRT were considered, avoiding one of the main reasons of miscarriage and implantation failure and overcoming confounding factors such as female age, embryo quality or ovarian stimulation protocols.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

No external funding was received. B.C. reports personal fees from MSD, Merck Serono, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, IBSA and Gedeon Richter outside the submitted work. N.P. reports grants and personal fees from MSD, Merck Serono, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Theramex and Besins International and personal fees from IBSA and Gedeon Richter outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03740568.

What is the optimal luteal support in assisted reproductive technology?

The need for luteal phase support in IVF/ICSI is well established. A large effort has been made in the attempt to identify the optimal type, start, route, dosage and duration of luteal phase support for IVF/ICSI and frozen embryo transfer. These questions are further complicated by the different types of stimulation protocols and ovulation triggers used in ART. The aim of this review is to supply a comprehensive overview of the available types of luteal phase support, and the indications for their use.A review of the literature was carried out in the effort to find the optimal luteal phase support regimen with regards to pregnancy related outcomes and short and long term safety.The results demonstrate that vaginal, intramuscular, subcutaneous and rectal progesterone are equally effective as luteal phase support in IVF/ICSI. GnRH agonists and oral dydrogesterone are new and promising treatment modalities but more research is needed. hCG and estradiol are not recommended for luteal phase support. More research is needed to establish the most optimal luteal phase support in frozen embryo transfer cycles, but progesterone has been shown to improve live birth rate in some studies. Luteal phase support should be commenced between the evening of the day of oocyte retrieval, and day three after oocyte retrieval and it should be continued at least until the day of positive pregnancy test.So, in conclusion still more large and well-designed RCT's are needed to establish the most optimal luteal phase support in each stimulation protocol, and especially in frozen embryo transfer.

Women utilizing oocyte donation have a decreased live birth rate if they displayed a low progesterone level in a previous hormonal replacement mock cycle

PURPOSE

Is serum progesterone(P) level on day 2 of vaginal P administration in a hormonally substituted mock cycle predictive of live birth in oocyte donation(OD)?

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 110 mock cycles from 2008 to 2016 of OD recipients having at least one subsequent embryo transfer (ET). Endometrial preparation consisted of sequential administration of vaginal estradiol, followed by transdermal estradiol and 600 mg/day vaginal micronized P. In mock cycles, serum P was measured 2 days after vaginal P introduction. OD was performed 1 to 3 years later, without P measurement.

RESULTS

In mock cycles, mean serum P level on day 2 was 12.8 ± 4.5 ng/mL (range: 4-28 ng/mL). A total of 32% patients had P < 10 ng/mL. At the time of first OD, age of recipients and donors, number of retrieved and attributed oocytes, and number of transferred embryos were comparable between patients with P < 10 ng/mL in their mock cycles compared with P ≥ 10 ng/mL. Pregnancy and live birth rate after first ET were significantly lower for patients with P < 10ng/mL (9% vs. 35 %; P = 0.002 and 9% vs. 32%; P = 0.008, respectively). Considering both fresh and subsequent frozen-thawed ET, cumulative live birth rate per-patient and per-transfer were significantly lower in patients with P < 10 ng/mL in their mock cycle (14% vs. 35%; P = 0.02 and 11% vs. 27%; P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

A low P level in hormonally substituted cycles several years before ET performed with the same endometrial preparation is associated with a significantly lower chance of live birth. This suggests that altered vaginal P absorption is a permanent phenomenon. Monitoring serum P in hormonally substituted cycles appears mandatory to adjust luteal P substitution.

[Progesterone and frozen-thawed embryo transfer after hormonal replacement therapy for endometrial preparation: An update on medical practices]

Frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) has recently become the most frequently performed ART procedure. Many protocols for endometrial preparation are used, without any evidence-based superiority of one protocol above the others. Most French fertility centers mainly use hormonal replacement treatment (HRT) for endometrial preparation for organizational reasons. According to some studies, early pregnancy losses rate is higher with HRT endometrial preparation for FET than with other protocols, leading to new insights in improving outcomes into ART centers. There is a lack of consensual guidelines regarding the use of HRT for FET: there are various protocols, with different dosages, duration and routes for progesterone (PG) prescription. To date, the vaginal route is the most popular around the world as it gives higher intra-uterine concentration of PG because of the first uterine pass. However, recent scientific publications have pointed the importance of PG measurement in order to detect a lack of PG supplementation. Whatever the route of administration, it seems that a significant proportion of patients do not reach adequate PG concentrations for successful implantation and ongoing pregnancy. Timing of the measurement and ideal serum PG rate to reach are yet to be defined. What treatment strategy to adopt according to the results is still under investigation. Individualization of PG doses and routes of administration could lead to a decrease in miscarriages and better outcome.