Luteal estrogen supplementation in stimulated cycles may improve the pregnancy rate in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection-embryo transfer

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.

Peri-implantation estradiol level has no effect on pregnancy outcome in vitro fertilization- embryo transfer

Background

The necessity of monitoring luteal endocrine functions in in vitro fertilization- embryo transfer (IVF-ET) remains uncertain. Specifically, the significance of luteal phase estradiol (E2) levels is a matter of debate in current literature.

Objective

To assess the impact of luteal phase (day 11 after HCG trigger) estradiol levels on IVF-ET outcomes.

Design

Twelve thousand five hundred and thirty-five (n = 12,535) IVF-ET cycles performed in our center between 2015 and 2021 were divided into 5 groups based on the middle and late luteal phase serum E2 (MllPSE2) level percentiles as follows: Group A < 50 pg/mL (N=500), group B 50 pg/mL≤E2<150 pg/mL (N=2545), group C 150 pg/mL≤E2<250 pg/mL (N=1327), group D 250 pg/mL≤E2<500 pg/mL (N=925), group E E2≥500 pg/mL (n=668). The clinical pregnancy rates, abortion rates, and live birth rates of each group were compared. Binary logistic regression analysis was carried out to assess the potential impact of MllPSE2 on the live birth rate (LBR).

Results

No significant differences were found in various parameters when comparing the five groups. The level of MllPSE2 showed no significant difference between the pregnant group and the non-pregnant group. The binary logistic regression analysis model demonstrated that MllPSE2 was not significantly related to LBR.

Conclusion

The influence of E2 during the peri-implantation period (day 11) on clinical outcome in IVF-ET is not affected, even if E2<50 pg/mL. It is speculated that ovarian-derived E2 in MllPSE2 is not deemed necessary for endometrial receptivity. Although caution is warranted due to the retrospective nature of the analysis and the potential for unmeasured confounding, it is argued that the need for luteal E2 monitoring in IVF-ET may be of questionable value.

Is there any correlation between Estradiol supplementation, as luteal phase support, and clinical pregnancy in ART cycles? A cross-sectional study

Background

Endometrial receptivity is one of the important factors in assisted reproductive technology (ART) success. In the luteal phase of an ART cycle, serum estradiol (E2) and progesterone are often placed in low levels. Supporting the luteal phase with progesterone is a usual method.

Objective

To evaluate the effects of E2 supplementation plus progesterone on the luteal phase support in the antagonist protocol who have undergone intracytoplasmic sperm injection-embryo transfer cycles.

Materials and Methods

In this cross-sectional study, 200 patients with antagonist stimulation protocol, who had undergone intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment, were divided into two groups based on the use of E2 supplementation. In both groups, 400 mg progesterone suppositories (CyclogestⓇ), twice a day/vaginally, was administered starting from the day of oocyte collection until the fetal heart activity. However, in the E2 group, in addition to progesterone, 4 mg tablet of E2 was received daily. Beta hCG was checked 14 days after the embryo transfer, and the clinical pregnancy rate was the main endpoint.

Results

The patients' characteristics were matched, and insignificant differences were observed, except for endometrial thickness. The clinical outcomes showed the rate of pregnancy was higher in the E2 group compared to the control group; nonetheless, statistically, there was no noticeable difference.

Conclusion

E2 supplementation had no beneficial effect in the luteal phase support of IVF cycles. Nevertheless, more studies are required to confirm the supportive role of E2 supplementation for embryo implantation and to improve the outcomes in ART cycles.

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.

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 with estradiol and progesterone versus progesterone alone in GnRH antagonist ICSI cycles: a randomized controlled study

In vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles are associated with a defective luteal phase. Although progesterone supplementation to treat this problem is standard practice, estrogen addition is debatable. Our aim was to compare pregnancy outcomes in 220 patients undergoing antagonist intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles protocol. The patients were randomly assigned into two equal groups to receive either vaginal progesterone alone (90 mg once daily) starting on the day of oocyte retrieval for up to 12 weeks if pregnancy occurred or estradiol addition (2 mg twice daily) starting on the same day and continuing up to seven weeks (foetal viability scan). Primary outcomes were pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy rates per embryo transfer. Secondary outcomes were implantation and early pregnancy loss rates. Pregnancy rates showed no significant difference between group 1 (39.09%) and 2 (43.63%) (p value = 0.3). Similarly, both groups were comparable regarding ongoing pregnancy rate (32.7% group 1 and 36.3% group 2, p value = 0.1). Implantation rates showed no difference between group 1 (19.25%) and group 2 (23.44%) (p value = 0.2). Early pregnancy loss rates were comparable, with 6.3% and 7.2% in groups 1 and 2, respectively, (p value = 0.4). In conclusion, the addition of 4 mg estrogen daily to progesterone for luteal support in antagonist ICSI cycles is not beneficial for pregnancy outcome.

Mid-luteal estradiol levels of poor/good responders and intracytoplasmic sperm injection

OBJECTIVE

To assess mid-luteal estradiol (E2) levels in poor and good responders and determine its effect on the outcome after intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).

METHODS

The current study was carried out in females who underwent ICSI from June 2011 to September 2013 in "Islamabad Clinic Serving Infertile Couples". They were categorized into good and poor responders on the basis of female age ≤40 years, basal follicle stimulating hormone ≤12 mIU/ml, and antral follicle count >5, respectively. Their mid-luteal E2 measured on the day of embryo transfer was stratified into groups (A-E) on the basis of 20th, 40th, 60th and 80th percentile values. The outcome was categorized into non-pregnant with beta human chorionic Gonadotrophin (hCG) 5-25 m IU/ml, and clinical pregnancy with beta hCG>25 m IU/ml.

RESULTS

The conception rate was 12% (63/513) in poor responders and 72% (237/329) in good responders respectively. The mid-luteal E2 levels were higher in conception as compared to non-conception cycles (p<0.001) in good and poor responders.

CONCLUSION

Maximum pregnancies in poor and good responders (53% and 98% respectively) with mid-luteal E2 levels above 80th percentiles confirm the role of the increase in mid-luteal E2 for augmentation in conception rate of females after ICSI.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Bibliography. Current world literature

This bibliography is compiled by clinicians from the journals listed at the end of this publication. It is based on literature entered into our database between 1 February 2008 and 31 January 2009 (articles are generally added to the database about two and a half months after publication). In addition, the bibliography contains every paper annotated by reviewers; these references were obtained from a variety of bibliographic databases and published between the beginning of the review period and the time of going to press. The bibliography has been grouped into topics that relate to the reviews in this issue.

The role of steroid hormones in ART

Steroid hormones hold a major role in female fertility and their proper utilisation and monitoring in modern assisted reproduction protocols is important. Oocyte maturation and endometrial receptivity are the two major factors that appear to be related to a successful outcome in Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART). Many reports suggest that oocyte immaturity accounts for a considerable loss of efficiency in ART, mainly due to the poor quality of the obtained embryos and their inability to develop normally. Oestrogen appears to exert its effects on the cytoplasmic maturation of the oocyte, while progesterone has been shown to accelerate meiotic resumption. Moreover, ovarian stimulation appears to affect the normal luteal function and shifts in the window of implantation as a response to hormonal supplementation have also been observed. The ethical limitations in conducting in vivo studies of human implantation, have led to an indirect hormonal- and morphologic-oriented assessment of endometrial receptivity. The two main protocols of luteal support involve either progesterone supplementation or hCG administration, whereas the combined supplementation with oestradiol remains controversial. This brief review aims to summarize the current knowledge on steroidal actions during the above processes and to address their potential use in the improvement of current ART protocols.