The effect of laparoscopic follicular aspiration on ovarian steroidogenesis during the early preimplantation period

Oral dydrogesterone along with vaginal micronized progesterone supplementation for luteal phase support in IVF patients, and its impact on pregnancy and live birth rates: a prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND

A normal luteal function is an essential factor for maintaining pregnancy; luteal phase deficiency decreases embryo implantation and pregnancy rate and increases the early miscarriage rate. In stimulated in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) patients, luteal phase support (LPS) is achieved by the exogenous supplementation with progesterone to increase endometrial receptivity and pregnancy. While several protocols exist, no commonly accepted protocol has been established for optimal luteal support after IVF-ET to date, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of two different luteal phase support protocols in patients undergoing assisted reproductive technologies.

METHODS

In a prospective open, randomized study conducted in a private IVF Unit a total of 700 infertile patients, undergoing in vitro fertilization treatment, were recruited for this study. All patients had a mild ovarian stimulation protocol with GnRH antagonist. The patients were randomized into two groups based on the type of luteal phase support route: Group A, control group (n = 310) patients received our routine LPS protocol which consists of the administration of 800 mg of micronized vaginal progesterone and Group B, study group, (n = 310) patients received a combination of oral dydrogesterone 20 mg and 90 mg of a gel of vaginal micronized progesterone Pregnancy rate, live birth rate, implantation rate and miscarriage rate were evaluated as primary endpoints. Statistical analysis was performed using JMP software (version 17; SAS, Inc., Cary, NC, USA). A P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

No differences were observed between the two groups in terms of pregnancy rate (Group A 34,9% vs. Group B 35,7%), live birth rate (Group A 30,6% vs. Group B 29,2%), miscarriage rate (Group A 12% vs. Group B 18%) and implantation rate (Group A 18,6% vs. Group B 17,1%).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of two different formulations of progesterone (vaginal and oral) for luteal phase support does not improve IVF outcomes when compared to the vaginal route of progesterone administration alone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study has been retrospectively registered with the Clinical Trials registry reference number ISRCTN52148405 ( http://isrctn.org/ ).

Ovarian stimulation for IVF and endometrial receptivity--the missing link

The contemporary approach to ovarian stimulation for IVF treatment results in supraphysiological concentrations of steroids during the follicular and luteal phases of the menstrual cycle. These sex steroids act directly and indirectly to mature the endometrium, influencing receptivity for implantation. Corpus luteum function is distinctly abnormal in IVF cycles, and therefore luteal support is widely used. Various reasons may underlie the defective luteal phase, including (i) ovarian hyperstimulation per se, (ii) gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogue co-treatment and (iii) the use of human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) to induce final oocyte maturation. The recent introduction of GnRH antagonist co-treatment for the prevention of a premature LH rise during the late follicular phase allows for different approaches to ovarian stimulation for IVF. However, a recent meta-analysis showed that implantation rates may be compromised by using GnRH antagonists in currently employed regimens. The development of endometrium receptive to embryo implantation is a complex process and may be altered by inappropriate exposure to sex steroids in terms of timing, duration and magnitude. New approaches to the assessment of endometrial receptivity are now required. Novel approaches to ovarian stimulation aimed at adjusted GnRH antagonist regimens and achieving a more physiological luteal phase endocrinology are now appearing in the literature and may represent an important step in the improvement of the overall health economics of IVF.

Effect of follicular aspiration just before ovulation on corpus luteum characteristics, circulating progesterone concentrations and uterine receptivity in single-ovulating and superstimulated heifers

The aim of this study was to investigate, in unstimulated and superstimulated heifers, the effect of follicle aspiration just before ovulation on corpus luteum (CL) development, circulating progesterone (P4) concentrations and the ability of the uterus to support embryo development. Following follicle aspiration or ovulation timed from GNRH administration, CL development was assessed by daily ultrasonography, and CL function was assessed in terms of the capacity to produce P4 and the expression of genes involved in steroidogenesis in luteal tissue. The capacity of the uterine environment to support conceptus development was assessed following transfer and recovery of in vitro-produced embryos. Follicular aspiration just before the expected time of ovulation leads to a significant reduction in CL diameter, CL area and area of luteal tissue. This was associated with a decrease in circulating P4 in both unstimulated and superstimulated heifers. Follicle aspiration leads to a reduction in conceptus length and area on day 14 in unstimulated heifers only. Follicle aspiration leads to a reduction in the expression of LHCGR in luteal tissue from unstimulated heifers compared with those in which the CL formed after ovulation. Superstimulation significantly reduced the expression of STAR in luteal tissue in both ovulated and follicle-aspirated heifers. In conclusion, in stimulated and unstimulated heifers, aspiration of the preovulatory dominant follicle(s) just before expected ovulation interferes with the subsequent formation and function of the CL, in terms of size and P4 output and this, in turn, is associated with a reduced capacity of the uterus to support conceptus elongation in unstimulated heifers.

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 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.

Monoclonal enzyme immunoassay measurement of estradiol and progesterone receptors in in vitro fertilization and spontaneous cycles

So far, the few studies performed on endometrial steroid receptors in in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles have been carried out by the dextran-coated charcoal (DCC) method. Despite widespread efforts to standardize the DCC assay method, assay results still vary and thus, data obtained in IVF cycles are controversial. In the present article, late luteal estradiol (E2) and progesterone (P) receptor (R) levels were measured by a new monoclonal enzyme immunoassay (EIA) method in endometrial samples obtained from 21 patients in an IVF program who received no embryo transfer (ET) after ovarian stimulation with follicle-stimulating hormone/human menopausal gonadotrophin/human chorionic gonadotrophin under pituitary suppression with buserelin. Plasma levels of E2, P and prolactin (PRL) were measured in three blood samples collected in the midluteal phase. Results were compared with those obtained in a control group of 21 spontaneous cycles. E2, P and PRL were significantly higher in stimulated than in spontaneous cycles. The level of E2R was decreased in endometrium in IVF stimulated cycles, but PR remained unchanged.

The luteal phase after oocyte recovery in a spontaneous cycle

There is disagreement as to whether follicular aspiration and oocyte recovery leads to a defective luteal phase. A group of 20 women with mild endometriosis was studied over two consecutive spontaneous cycles. Follicular aspiration and oocyte recovery was performed 32 hours after the onset of the endogenous luteinizing hormone surge during the second cycle. There was little disturbance of the luteal phase or in the pituitary gonadal relationship in the aspirated cycle. Although a significantly lower serum progesterone was noted on day 8 of post-oocyte recovery, all results were within the normal range seen in the control cycles.

Trial of support treatment with human chorionic gonadotrophin in the luteal phase after treatment with buserelin and human menopausal gonadotrophin in women taking part in an in vitro fertilisation programme

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of support with human chorionic gonadotrophin in the luteal phase in women taking part in an in vitro fertilisation programme after buserelin and human menopausal gonadotrophin were used to hyperstimulate their ovaries.

DESIGN

Controlled group comparison.

SETTING

Outpatient department of a private hospital.

PATIENTS

115 Women with indications for in vitro fertilisation, all of whom had at least one embryo transferred.

INTERVENTIONS

After suppression of the pituitary with buserelin the ovaries of all the women were stimulated with human menopausal gonadotrophin on day 4 of the luteal phase. Human chorionic gonadotrophin (10,000 IU) was given to induce ovulation, and oocytes were recovered 34 hours later. Embryos were transferred 46 to 48 hours after insemination. Women who had received the 10,000 IU of human chorionic gonadotrophin on a date that was an uneven number (n = 61) were allocated to receive support doses of 2500 IU human chorionic gonadotrophin three and six days after that date. The remaining 54 women did not receive hormonal support.

END POINT

Determination of the rates of pregnancy. MEASUREMENTS and main results--Support with human chorionic gonadotrophin did not significantly alter the progesterone or oestradiol concentrations in the early or mid-luteal phase. The mean (range) progesterone concentrations in the late luteal phase in women who did not become pregnant were, however, significantly higher in those who received support (16(9-110) nmol/l nu 8(4-46) nmol/l), and the luteal phase was significantly longer in this group (14 days nu 12 days). The rate of pregnancy was significantly higher in the women who received support than in those who did not (25/61 nu 8/54).

CONCLUSIONS

When buserelin and human menopausal gonadotrophin are used to hyperstimulate ovaries support with human chorionic gonadotrophin in the luteal phase has a beneficial effect on in vitro fertilisation.