Towards an optimal luteal support modality in agonist triggered cycles: a randomized clinical trial

Investigation of luteal HCG supplementation in GnRH-agonist-triggered fresh embryo transfer cycles: a randomized controlled trial

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does splitting the human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) support in IVF cycles triggered by a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist result in a better progesterone profile?

DESIGN

Randomized controlled three-arm study, performed at the Fertility Clinic, Odense University Hospital, Denmark. Patients with 12-25 follicles ≥12 mm were randomized into three groups: Group 1 - ovulation triggered with 6500 IU HCG; Group 2 - ovulation triggered with 0.5 mg GnRH agonist, followed by 1500 IU HCG on the day of oocyte retrieval (OCR); and Group 3 - ovulation triggered with 0.5 mg GnRH agonist, followed by 1000 IU HCG on the day of OCR and 500 IU HCG on OCR + 5. All groups received 180 mg vaginal progesterone. Progesterone concentrations were analysed in eight blood samples from each patient.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine patients completed the study. Baseline and laboratory data were comparable. Progesterone concentration peaked on OCR + 4 in Groups 1 and 2, and peaked on OCR + 6 in Group 3. On OCR + 6, the progesterone concentration in Group 2 was significantly lower compared with Groups 1 and 3 (P = 0.003 and P < 0.001, respectively). On OCR + 8, the progesterone concentration in Group 3 was significantly higher compared with the other groups (both P<0.001). Progesterone concentrations were significantly higher in Group 3 from OCR + 6 until OCR + 14 compared with the other groups (all P ≤ 0.003). Four patients developed ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in Group 3.

CONCLUSION

Sequential HCG support after a GnRH agonist trigger provides a better progesterone concentration in the luteal phase.

Prevention of moderate and severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: a guideline

Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome is a serious complication associated with assisted reproductive technology. This systematic review aims to identify who is at high risk for developing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, along with evidence-based strategies to prevent it and replaces the document of the same name last published in 2016.

Luteal phase support in fresh and frozen embryo transfers

Context

Luteal phase support (LPS) has become an essential component of IVF protocols following both fresh and frozen embryo transfers, yet there is still controversy with regards to the optimal protocol of LPS to enhance treatment outcome.

Search strategy

A search via PubMed for all the selected topics was limited to publications from the past 10 years and to English language. We subsequently searched the reference lists of retrieved articles. Where available, RCTs were chosen over non-randomized studies. Here we provide an updated review of the current literature on various issues relating to LPS, in both fresh and frozen embryo transfers. The timing of LPS initiation as well as the route of administration and dosing are discussed for both fresh and frozen transfers. A separate discussion for frozen thawed embryo transfer in natural cycles and non-ovulatory cycles is presented.

Conclusions

We present data that supports the use of Progesterone LPS in fresh and frozen embryo transfers. No benefits were found to the addition of hCG or estradiol to progesterone LPS in fresh transfers, however GnRH agonist may have a role. IM Progesterone was not advantageous over vaginal progesterone in fresh transfers but was superior in frozen transfers. The timing of LPS introduction, the interval to embryo transfer, as well as the serum concentration of progesterone, have significant effects on the success of the treatment.

The freeze-all strategy versus agonist triggering with low-dose hCG for luteal phase support in IVF/ICSI for high responders: a randomized controlled trial

STUDY QUESTION

Does the freeze-all strategy in high-responders increase pregnancy rates and improve safety outcomes when compared with GnRH agonist triggering followed by low-dose hCG intensified luteal support with a fresh embryo transfer?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Pregnancy rates after either fresh embryo transfer with intensified luteal phase support using low-dose hCG or the freeze-all strategy did not vary significantly; however, moderate-to-severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) occurred more frequently in the women who attempted a fresh embryo transfer.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Two strategies following GnRH agonist triggering (the freeze-all approach and a fresh embryo transfer attempt using a low-dose of hCG for intensified luteal phase support) are safer alternatives when compared with conventional hCG triggering with similar pregnancy outcomes. However, these two strategies have never been compared head-to-head in an unrestricted predicted hyper-responder population.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This study included women with an excessive response to ovarian stimulation (≥18 follicles measuring ≥11 mm) undergoing IVF/ICSI in a GnRH antagonist suppressed cycle between 2014 and 2017. Our primary outcome was clinical pregnancy at 7 weeks after the first embryo transfer. Secondary outcomes included live birth and the development of moderate-to-severe OHSS.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Following GnRH agonist triggering, women were randomized either to cryopreserve all good-quality embryos followed by a frozen embryo transfer in an subsequent artificial cycle or to perform a fresh embryo transfer with intensified luteal phase support (1500 IU hCG on the day of oocyte retrieval, plus oral estradiol 2 mg two times a day, plus 200 mg of micronized vaginal progesterone three times a day).

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

A total of 212 patients (106 in each arm) were recruited in the study, with three patients (one in the fresh embryo transfer group and two in the freeze-all group) later withdrawing their consent to participate in the study. One patient in the freeze-all group became pregnant naturally (clinical pregnancy diagnosed 38 days after randomization) prior to the first frozen embryo transfer. The study arms did not vary significantly in terms of the number of oocytes retrieved and embryos produced/transferred. The intention to treat clinical pregnancy and live birth rates (with the latter excluding four cases lost to follow-up: one in the fresh transfer and three in the freeze-all arms, respectively) after the first embryo transfer did not vary significantly among the fresh embryo transfer and freeze-all study arms: 51/105 (48.6%) versus 57/104 (54.8%) and 41/104 (39.4%) versus 42/101 (41.6%), respectively (relative risk for clinical pregnancy 1.13, 95% CI 0.87-1.47; P = 0.41). However, moderate-to-severe OHSS occurred solely in the group that received low-dose hCG (9/105, 8.6%, 95% CI 3.2% to 13.9% vs 0/104, 95% CI 0 to 3.7, P < 0.01).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The sample size calculation was based on a 19% absolute difference in terms of clinical pregnancy rates, therefore smaller differences, as observed in the trial, cannot be reliably excluded as non-significant.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This study offers the first comparative analysis of two common strategies applied to women performing IVF/ICSI with a high risk to develop OHSS. While pregnancy rates did not vary significantly, a fresh embryo transfer with intensified luteal phase support may still not avoid the risk of moderate-to-severe OHSS and serious consideration should be made before recommending it as a routine first-line treatment. Future trials may allow us to confirm these findings.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. No external funding was obtained for this study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02148393.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

28 May 2014.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

30 May 2014.

GnRH Agonist versus hCG Trigger in Ovulation Induction with Intrauterine Insemination: A Randomized Controlled Trial

This study is aimed at comparing clinical pregnancy rates (CPRs) in patients who are administered either gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) or human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) for ovulation trigger in intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles. A prospective randomized comparative study was conducted at Hue University Hospital in Vietnam. A total of 197 infertile women were randomly assigned to receive either GnRHa trigger (n = 98 cycles) or hCG trigger (n = 99 cycles) for ovulation trigger. Patients returned for ultrasound monitoring 24 hours after IUI to confirm ovulation. A clinical pregnancy was defined as the presence of gestational sac with fetal cardiac activity. There was no difference in ovulation rates in either group receiving GnRHa or hCG trigger for ovulation. Biochemical and CPR were higher in patients who received hCG (28.3% and 23.2%) versus GnRHa (14.3% and 13.3%) (p = 0.023, OR 0.42, 95%CI = 0.21 - 0.86 and p = 0.096, OR 0.51, 95%CI = 0.24 - 1.07, respectively). After adjusting for body mass index (BMI) and infertility duration, there was no difference in CPR between the two groups (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.27-1.25, p = 0.163). In conclusion, the use of the GnRHa to trigger ovulation in patients undergoing ovulation induction may be considered in patients treated with IUI.