The luteal phase and early pregnancy after combined GnRH-agonist/HMG treatment for superovulation in IVF or GIFT

Comparison of the efficacy of vaginal micronised progesterone tablet and gel for in vitro fertilisation

BACKGROUND

Luteal phase support (LPS) with progesterone is a generally accepted practice after controlled ovarian stimulation, although the best protocols for LPS have been debated. We aimed to compare the efficacy of vaginal micronised progesterone tablets and 8% vaginal progesterone gel for LPS using real-world data.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 459 in vitro fertilisation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles performed at a university hospital from 2005 to 2019. All cycles were followed by fresh day 3 embryo transfer (ET). Either progesterone tablets or gel was used for LPS. To control the conditional probability of progesterone tablets or gel use, doubly robust inverse probability weighting composed of inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting (IPTW) and regression adjustment (RA). IPTW was performed based on the covariate balancing propensity score (CBPS).

RESULTS

Progesterone tablets were administered in 65 cycles, and progesterone gel was administered in 394 cycles. Women who used progesterone tablets were more likely to be older (36 vs. 34 years), have primary infertility (78.5% vs. 61.4%), use gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (60.0% vs. 43.2%), and have fewer retrieved oocytes (seven vs. nine) and transferred embryos (two vs. three) than participants who used progesterone gel. After IPTW-CBPS and RA analysis for the above covariates, the adjusted odds for clinical pregnancy in women who used progesterone tablets were 1.10 times compared with women who used progesterone gel; however, the 95% confidence interval did not reach statistical significance (0.96-1.26).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical pregnancy was comparable between vaginal micronised progesterone tablets and vaginal progesterone gel for LPS in fresh day 3 ET cycles.

Comparing the effects of two different progesterone vaginal gels, Progeson™ and Crinone™, from pharmacokinetics study to clinical applications in patients undergone fresh embryo transfer and frozen-thawed embryo transfer via natural cycle endometrial preparation protocol

OBJECTIVE

The pharmacokinetics performance and clinical pregnancy rate of two vaginal progesterone gel, Progeson™ and Crinone™, were compared in this study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In the pharmacokinetics performance, Progeson showed similar long-term dissolution rate as Crinone. In the clinical study, 141 subjects undergone in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments were included to compare serum progesterone level and clinical pregnancy rates.

RESULTS

Among the subjects, 78 subjects received fresh embryo transfer and 63 subjects received frozen embryo transfer via natural cycle endometrial preparation protocol. In each group, subjects were given either Crinone™ or Progeson™ for luteal phase support without combination with other progesterone products. The study showed that Crinone™ group led to higher estrogen level at mid-luteal phase in the fresh embryo transfer group, and Progeson™ group led to higher progesterone level at mid-luteal phase and pregnancy test day in the frozen-thawed embryo transfer group.

CONCLUSION

Subjects received Crinone™ or Progeson™ had similar rate of pregnancy, live birth, and stillbirth in both fresh embryo transfer and frozen-thawed embryo transfer group. Thus, Progeson™ might be a suitable substitute for Crinone™ in assisted reproductive therapy.

GnRH agonist as a luteal support in IVF cycle: mini-review—is there a role?

Background

It has been established that assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles are usually accompanied by a defective luteal phase, and that luteal phase support (LPS) is mandatory to improve reproductive outcomes. This review aims to summarize the hypothesis, safety and current evidence about GnRH agonist as a luteal phase support in ART.

Main body

There are many regimens of luteal phase support to improve ART outcomes in women undergoing fresh and thawed cycles. Luteal phase support drugs include progesterone, human chorionic gonadotropin, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist, estradiol, and recombinant luteinizing hormone. There is some debate about optimal drugs and timing for start of LPS in ART cycles.

Conclusion

Although most centers support luteal phase by vaginal progesterone, GnRH agonist is a debatable drug for luteal support cycles.

Eliminating Hormones With Orally Active Gonadotropin-releasing Hormone Antagonists

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues have been used in clinical practice for nearly 3 decades. Beginning with GnRH agonists, these agents have been used to treat hormone-dependent disease and to suppress gonadotropin production in assisted reproductive technologies. With the development of GnRH antagonists and especially small-molecule antagonists, our ability to achieve gonadotropin and sex steroid suppression has become increasingly effective and convenient. In this review, we will briefly describe the development of GnRH analogues, review the evolution of orally active small-molecule GnRH antagonists and provide an overview of the expanding role of small-molecule GnRH antagonists in clinical practice.

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.

Optimising Follicular Development, Pituitary Suppression, Triggering and Luteal Phase Support During Assisted Reproductive Technology: A Delphi Consensus

BACKGROUND

A Delphi consensus was conducted to evaluate global expert opinions on key aspects of assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment.

METHODS

Ten experts plus the Scientific Coordinator discussed and amended statements plus supporting references proposed by the Scientific Coordinator. The statements were distributed via an online survey to 35 experts, who voted on their level of agreement or disagreement with each statement. Consensus was reached if the proportion of participants agreeing or disagreeing with a statement was >66%.

RESULTS

Eighteen statements were developed. All statements reached consensus and the most relevant are summarised here. (1) Follicular development and stimulation with gonadotropins (n = 9 statements): Recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone (r-hFSH) alone is sufficient for follicular development in normogonadotropic patients aged <35 years. Oocyte number and live birth rate are strongly correlated; there is a positive linear correlation with cumulative live birth rate. Different r-hFSH preparations have identical polypeptide chains but different glycosylation patterns, affecting the biospecific activity of r-hFSH. r-hFSH plus recombinant human LH (r-hFSH:r-hLH) demonstrates improved pregnancy rates and cost efficacy versus human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) in patients with severe FSH and LH deficiency. (2) Pituitary suppression (n = 2 statements): Gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists are associated with lower rates of any grade ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and cycle cancellation versus GnRH agonists. (3) Final oocyte maturation triggering (n=4 statements): Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) represents the gold standard in fresh cycles. The efficacy of hCG triggering for frozen transfers in modified natural cycles is controversial compared with LH peak monitoring. Current evidence supports significantly higher pregnancy rates with hCG + GnRH agonist versus hCG alone, but further evidence is needed. GnRH agonist trigger, in GnRH antagonist protocol, is recommended for final oocyte maturation in women at risk of OHSS. (4) Luteal-phase support (n = 3 statements): Vaginal progesterone therapy represents the gold standard for luteal-phase support.

CONCLUSIONS

This Delphi consensus provides a real-world clinical perspective on the specific approaches during the key steps of ART treatment from a diverse group of international experts. Additional guidance from clinicians on ART strategies could complement guidelines and policies, and may help to further improve treatment outcomes.

Intramuscular progesterone versus 8% Crinone vaginal gel for luteal phase support following blastocyst cryopreserved single embryo transfer: a retrospective cohort study

Background

The optimal route of progesterone administration for luteal support in cryopreserved embryo transfer (CET) has been the subject of much debate. While most published research has pertained to day 3 transfers, recent data on blastocyst CET has suggested that intramuscular progesterone (IMP) is superior to twice daily vaginal Endometrin suppositories for luteal phase support, resulting in significantly higher ongoing pregnancy rates. This study aimed to determine whether IMP is similarly superior to 8% Crinone vaginal gel for luteal phase support following blastocyst CET.

Methods

Autologous and donor oocyte blastocyst cryopreserved single embryo transfer (SET) cycles from January 2014-January 2019 utilizing either 50 mg IMP daily or 90 mg 8% Crinone gel twice daily for luteal support were included. The primary outcome was live birth. Secondary outcomes included biochemical pregnancy, spontaneous abortion, and clinical pregnancy. All analyses were adjusted a priori for oocyte age. Log-binomial regression analysis was performed with differences in outcomes reported as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results

A total of 1710 cycles were included, of which 1594 utilized IMP and 116 utilized 8% Crinone gel. Demographic and cycles characteristics were similar between the two groups. Compared to cycles utilizing IMP, cycles utilizing Crinone gel resulted in similar rates of live birth (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.73-1.13), biochemical pregnancy (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.65-1.92), spontaneous abortion (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.90-2.20), and clinical pregnancy (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86-1.17).

Conclusions

Compared to cryopreserved blastocyst SET cycles utilizing IMP for luteal support, cycles utilizing 8% Crinone gel resulted in similar likelihood of live birth.

Luteal Phase Support in IVF: Comparison Between Evidence-Based Medicine and Real-Life Practices

Background: Luteal phase support (LPS) in assisted reproduction cycles has been widely investigated in recent years. Although progesterone represents the preferential product for luteal phase supplementation in cycles with fresh embryo transfer, there is ongoing debate as to when to start, which is the best route, dosage and duration, and whether there is a place for additional agents. Nevertheless, fertility specialists do not always adhere to evidence-based recommendations in their clinical practice. The aim of this worldwide web-based survey is to document the currently used protocols for luteal phase support and appraisal tendencies of drug prescription behavior and to compare these to the existing evidence-based literature. Material and Methods: A questionnaire was developed and sent by secure e-mail to 1,480 clinicians involved in ART worldwide. One hundred and forty-eighth clinicians from 34 countries returned completed questionnaires. Results: Progesterone support is usually started on the day of oocyte retrieval. Eighty percent of clinicians applied the administration of vaginal progesterone only. Intramuscular progesterone was prescribed by 6%, while oral progestin or subcutaneous progesterone were each prescribed by 5% of clinicians, respectively. Progesterone was administered until 8-10 weeks' gestation by 35% and 12 weeks by 52% of respondents. Conclusions: Vaginal administration was the preferred route for luteal phase support. The reported emerging use of the oral route confirms the expected shift in clinical practice as a result of recent evidence showing a reassuring safety score of oral progestins. In spite of the lack of evidence supporting the continuation of luteal support until 12 weeks' gestation, this practice was adhered to by more than half of the clinicians surveyed, highlighting the difference between evidence-based medicine and real-life practices.

Short versus extended progesterone supplementation for luteal phase support in fresh IVF cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This review and meta-analysis aim to assess the effect of prolonged progesterone support on pregnancy outcomes in women undergoing fresh embryo transfer after IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Two independent authors searched Embase, MEDLINE and grey literature from inception to January 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCT) of prolonged progesterone support versus early cessation. Risk of bias was assessed. Outcome measures were live birth, miscarriage and ongoing pregnancy rate. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018088605). Seven trials involving 1627 participants were included: three reported live birth rate (672/830), seven the miscarriage rate (178/1627) and seven the ongoing pregnancy rate (1351/1627). Clinical outcomes were similar between early progesterone cessation versus progesterone continuation: live birth rate (risk ratio [RR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-1.00), miscarriage rate (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.69-1.20) and ongoing pregnancy rate (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91-1.05). Ongoing pregnancy rates were similar when analyses were restricted to those with cessation of progesterone on the day of a positive human chorionic gonadotrophin (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.83-1.06). This meta-analysis suggests that prolonged progesterone support may be unnecessary after fresh embryo transfer. Further larger RCT would be useful to corroborate and lead to standardized duration of progesterone luteal phase support across IVF/ICSI centres.

The role of luteal support during IVF: a qualitative systematic review

The aim of this review is to provide qualitative evidence-based synthesis regarding efficacy of luteal-phase support on fertility outcome in women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) with respect to clinical or live birth rates and pregnancy loss rates. Although the need of luteal phase support in IVF/ICSI cycles is well-known, the optimal start, dosage, route and the duration of the luteal phase support is still subject of debate. Data suggest that the optimal period to start with the luteal phase support would be between 24-72 hours after oocyte-retrieval and should continue at least until a positive pregnancy test is achieved. However, the majority of IVF-centers worldwide provide progesterone support up to 8 weeks of pregnancy. Among the well-established routes of luteal support, oral dydrogesterone and subcutaneous progesterone represent new and interesting routes of progesterone administration. The current studies support these routes of progesterone administration use in terms of comparable pregnancy rates and pregnancy loss rates to vaginal and intramuscular progesterone. Furthermore, the acceptance and tolerability among patients seems to be even better. In the frozen-thawed embryo transfer, dydrogesterone and vaginal progesterone are not effective as monotherapy treatments; however, when combined there is no reason to avoid one or the other in this setting.

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.

Luteal phase progesterone and oestradiol after ovarian stimulation: relation to response and prediction of pregnancy

Research has focused on optimizing luteal phase support and endometrial receptivity in ovarian stimulation cycles. In this study, serial endocrine measurements were taken in 600 patients after a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist stimulation protocol. On the day of blastocyst transfer, serum progesterone and oestradiol were similar irrespective of a subsequent positive or negative pregnancy test (median 99 ng/ml versus 103 ng/ml for progesterone, respectively) or a subsequent live birth or pregnancy loss. Serum progesterone was significantly correlated to each ovarian response parameter (total number of follicles, number of oocytes retrieved and oestradiol concentration; r = 0.45, 0.57 and 0.54 respectively, all P < 0.0001). These correlations were consistent irrespective of clinical outcome. On the day of the pregnancy test, these correlations had vanished except in the live birth subgroup showing a weaker correlation (r = 0.22, 0.27 and 0.32 respectively, all P < 0.005). The lowest HCG and progesterone levels associated with live birth were 59.3 IU/l and 12.3 ng/ml, respectively. Fourteen out of 92 patients (15.2%) with pregnancy loss had normal HCG but low progesterone levels (above and below their respective 5th percentile), and miscarried before the end of the 7th week, when the luteal-placental shift occurs.

Elective frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) in women at risk for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome

Elective cryopreservation of cultured embryos has become a treatment option for women at risk for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). The aim of our study was to investigate the outcome of elective cryopreservation and consecutive frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) in a large IVF clinic in Austria. A total of 6104 controlled ovarian hyperstimulation cycles (COH) were performed on 2998 patients including 200 patients (6.7%) who were undergoing elective cryopreservation and FET due to high risk of OHSS. We estimated the cumulative live birth rate using the Kaplan-Meier method and evaluated independent predictors for successful live births with a Cox model. A total of 270 frozen-thawed embryo transfers were performed on 200 patients with up to 4 transfers per patient. The first embryo transfer showed a live birth rate of 42.0%, the second transfer showed a cumulative rate of 58.5%. After a total of 4 FETs from the same COH cycle, a cumulative live birth rate of 61.0% per COH cycle could be achieved. Four cases of OHSS occurred amongst these patients (2.0%), all of them of moderate severity. Multivariate analysis identified maternal age, the use of assisted hatching and the number of embryos transferred at the blastocyst stage as independent predictors for cumulative live birth. Our study clearly suggests that elective FET is safe and shows excellent cumulative live birth rates. This concept can, therefore, be used to avoid the severe adverse events caused by COH and the inefficient use of cultured embryos.

Recombinant luteinizing hormone (rLH) and recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH) for ovarian stimulation in IVF/ICSI cycles

BACKGROUND

One of the various ovarian stimulation regimens used for in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles is the use of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) in combination with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogue. GnRH analogues prevent premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surges. Since they deprive the growing follicles of LH, the question arises as to whether supplementation with recombinant LH (rLH) would increase live birth rates. This is an updated Cochrane Review; the original version was published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness and safety of recombinant luteinizing hormone (rLH) combined with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) for ovarian stimulation compared to rFSH alone in women undergoing in-vitro fertilisation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI).

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched the following databases in June 2016: the Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and ongoing trials registers, and checked the references of retrieved articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing rLH combined with rFSH versus rFSH alone in IVF/ISCI cycles.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We combined data to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I2 statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods. Our primary outcomes were live birth rate and incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Secondary outcomes included ongoing pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate and cancellation rates (for poor response or imminent OHSS).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 36 RCTs (8125 women). The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations were risk of bias (associated with poor reporting of methods) and imprecision.Live birth rates: There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between rLH combined with rFSH versus rFSH alone in live birth rates (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.06; n = 499; studies = 4; I2 = 63%, very low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the live birth rate following treatment with rFSH alone is 17% it will be between 15% and 30% using rLH combined with rFSH.OHSS: There may be little or no difference between rLH combined with rFSH versus rFSH alone in OHSS rates (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.01; n = 2178; studies = 6; I2 = 10%, low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the rate of OHSS following treatment with rFSH alone is 1%, it will be between 0% and 1% using rLH combined with rFSH.Ongoing pregnancy rate: The use of rLH combined with rFSH probably improves ongoing pregnancy rates, compared to rFSH alone (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.42; participants = 3129; studies = 19; I2 = 2%, moderate-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the ongoing pregnancy rate following treatment with rFSH alone is 21%, it will be between 21% and 27% using rLH combined with rFSH.Miscarriage rate: The use of rLH combined with rFSH probably makes little or no difference to miscarriage rates, compared to rFSH alone (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.36; n = 1711; studies = 13; I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the miscarriage rate following treatment with rFSH alone is 7%, the miscarriage rate following treatment with rLH combined with rFSH will be between 4% and 9%.Cancellation rates: There may be little or no difference between rLH combined with rFSH versus rFSH alone in rates of cancellation due to low response (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.10; n = 2251; studies = 11; I2 = 16%, low quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the risk of cancellation due to low response following treatment with rFSH alone is 7%, it will be between 4% and 7% using rLH combined with rFSH.We are uncertain whether use of rLH combined with rFSH improves rates of cancellation due to imminent OHSS compared to rFSH alone. Use of a fixed effect model suggested a benefit in the combination group (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.89; n = 2976; studies = 8; I2 = 60%, very low quality evidence) but use of a random effects model did not support the conclusion that there was a difference between the groups (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.97).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no clear evidence of a difference between rLH combined with rFSH and rFSH alone in rates of live birth or OHSS. The evidence for these comparisons was of very low-quality for live birth and low quality for OHSS. We found moderate quality evidence that the use of rLH combined with rFSH may lead to more ongoing pregnancies than rFSH alone. There was also moderate-quality evidence suggesting little or no difference between the groups in rates of miscarriage. There was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of cancellation due to low response or imminent OHSS, but the evidence for these outcomes was of low or very low quality.We conclude that the evidence is insufficient to encourage or discourage stimulation regimens that include rLH combined with rFSH in IVF/ICSI cycles.

Impact of thyroid autoimmunity on cumulative delivery rates in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients

OBJECTIVE

To predict the impact of thyroid autoimmunity (TAI) on the probability of delivery after a defined number of treatment cycles, using analysis of cumulative delivery rates in patients with and without TAI.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study performed at the Center for Reproductive Medicine and Department of Endocrinology, University Hospital of Brussels, approved by the institutional review board of the hospital.

SETTING

University hospital.

PATIENT(S)

All patients who started their first IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycle at our fertility center between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2011 were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Live birth delivery after 25 weeks' gestation was taken as the primary endpoint of our study Cumulative delivery rates were calculated for both groups until six treatment cycles.

INTERVENTION(S)

All patients (in both groups) received the usual IVF treatment protocols (i.e., antagonist or agonist protocol).

RESULT(S)

In total 2,406 women who consulted our center were included. We included 333 patients with TAI and 2019 patients without TAI. In the TAI group the crude cumulative delivery rate after six cycles was 47%, whereas the expected cumulative delivery rate was 65%. In our control the crude cumulative delivery rate after six cycles was 47%, whereas the expected cumulative delivery rate was 76%.

CONCLUSION(S)

Our study did not confirm an influence of TAI status in patients undergoing fertility treatment on cumulative delivery rates after six IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles.

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.

Mild ovarian stimulation with clomiphene citrate launch is a realistic option for in vitro fertilization

OBJECTIVE

To validate the use of clomiphene citrate in IVF when mild stimulation approaches are chosen to reduce patient discomfort, risk, and cost.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Private IVF clinic.

PATIENT(S)

A total of 163 patients undergoing IVF and with a good prognosis (defined as ≤38 years old with normal ovarian reserve and normovulatory cycles, body mass index <29 kg/m(2), no previous assisted reproductive technology cycles, no severe endometriosis, no history of recurrent miscarriage, no endocrine/autoimmune diseases, and no surgical semen extraction).

INTERVENTION(S)

Mild stimulation using a fixed protocol of clomiphene citrate (100 mg/d from cycle days 3 to 7) in combination with low doses of gonadotropins (150 IU of recombinant FSH on cycle days 5, 7, and 9) and GnRH antagonist.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

The cumulative delivery rate per patient after three fresh and/or frozen embryo transfers and time to pregnancy.

RESULT(S)

No dropouts were observed. The cumulative delivery rate was 70%, and the mean time to pregnancy was 2.4 months.

CONCLUSION(S)

Mild stimulation using clomiphene citrate in combination with low doses of gonadotropins can be considered a realistic option for good-prognosis patients undergoing 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.

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.

The luteal phase after ovarian stimulation

Evaluation of the luteal phase after ovarian stimulation presents several difficulties. Until today, it has not been proved that in cycles stimulated with clomiphene citrate/human menopausal gonadotrophins, luteal supplementation with progesterone significantly increases implantation rate. On the contrary, it is accepted that in cycles stimulated with GnRH agonists/gonadotrophins, support of the luteal phase is essential for the achievement of pregnancy. In GnRH antagonist cycles luteal supplementation, although widely practised, is not at present supported by randomized controlled trials. Finally, it appears that the combination of gonadotrophin stimulation with human chorionic gonadotrophin results in an inadequate luteal phase with or without the use of either agonists or antagonists.

Evaluation of the impact of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist as an adjuvant in luteal-phase support on IVF outcome

OBJECTIVES:

To evaluate whether three daily doses of GnRH agonist (Inj. Lupride 1 mg SC) administered 6 days after oocyte retrieval increases ongoing pregnancy rates following embryo transfer (ET) in cycles stimulated with the long GnRH agonist protocol.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN:

Prospective randomized controlled study in a tertiary care center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Four hundred and twenty six women undergoing ET following controlled ovarian stimulation with a long GnRH agonist protocol were included. In addition to routine luteal-phase support (LPS) with progesterone, women were randomized to receive three 1 mg doses of Lupride 6 days after oocyte retrieval. Computer-generated randomization was done on the day of ET. Ongoing pregnancy rate beyond 20^th week of gestation was the primary outcome measure. The trial was powered to detect a 13% absolute increase from an assumed 27% ongoing pregnancy rate in the control group, with an alpha error level of 0.05 and a beta error level of 0.2.

RESULTS:

There were 59 (27.69%) ongoing pregnancies in the GnRHa group, and 56 (26.29%) in the control group (P = 0.827). Implantation, clinical pregnancy and multiple pregnancy rates were likewise similar in the GnRHa and placebo groups.

CONCLUSIONS:

Three 1 mg doses of Lupride administration 6 days after oocyte retrieval in the long protocol cycles does not result in an increase in ongoing pregnancy rates.

Intramuscular progesterone versus 8% Crinone vaginal gel for luteal phase support for day 3 cryopreserved embryo transfer

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes after intramuscular progesterone (IMP) or 8% Crinone vaginal gel for luteal support for day 3 cryopreserved embryo transfer (CET).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study with multivariable analysis.

SETTING

Academic medical center.

PATIENT(S)

All autologous and donor egg in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients who had a day 3 CET from January 1, 2008, to April 30, 2011, with luteal support using 25-50 mg/d IMP or 8% Crinone twice daily, initiated 3 days before the CET.

INTERVENTION(S)

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Implantation rate, clinical pregnancy, and live birth rates per CET.

RESULT(S)

IMP (n = 440) and Crinone (n = 298) recipients were similar for all demographic characteristics and cycle parameters assessed. Although implantation rates did not differ significantly between the two groups (Crinone vs. IMP: 19.6% vs. 30.4%), women supplemented with Crinone had significantly lower rates of clinical pregnancy (36.9% vs. 51.1%) and live birth (24.4% vs. 39.1%) compared with those on IMP.

CONCLUSION(S)

We observed that day 3 CET cycles with 8% Crinone luteal support had a 44% and 49% lower odds of clinical pregnancy and live birth, respectively, compared with those with IMP support. Further studies are required to identify the optimal timing and dose of 8% Crinone vaginal gel for use in CET cycles.

Duration of luteal support (DOLS) with progesterone pessaries to improve the success rates in assisted conception: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Luteal support with progesterone is necessary for successful implantation of the embryo following egg collection and embryo transfer in an in-vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle. Progesterone has been used for as little as 2 weeks and for as long as 12 weeks of gestation. The optimal length of treatment is unresolved at present and it remains unclear how long to treat women receiving luteal supplementation.

Design

The trial is a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to investigate the effect of the duration of luteal support with progesterone in IVF cycles. Following 2 weeks standard treatment and a positive biochemical pregnancy test, this randomized control trial will allocate women to a supplementary 8 weeks treatment with vaginal progesterone or 8 weeks placebo. Further studies would be required to investigate whether additional supplementation with progesterone is beneficial in early pregnancy.

Discussion

Currently at the Hewitt Centre, approximately 32.5% of women have a positive biochemical pregnancy test 2 weeks after embryo transfer. It is this population that is eligible for trial entry and randomization. Once the patient has confirmed a positive urinary pregnancy test they will be invited to join the trial. Once the consent form has been completed by the patient a trial prescription sheet will be sent to pharmacy with a stated collection time. The patient can then be randomized and the drugs dispensed according to pharmacy protocol. A blood sample will then be drawn for measurement of baseline hormone levels (progesterone, estradiol, free beta-human chorionic gonadotrophin, pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A, Activin A, Inhibin A and Inhibin B). The primary outcome measure is the proportion of all randomized women that continue successfully to a viable pregnancy (at least one fetus with fetal heart rate >100 beats/minute) on transabdominal/transvaginal ultrasound at 10 weeks post embryo transfer/12 weeks gestation (that is at the end of 8 weeks supplementary trial treatment).

Trial registration

ISRCTN05696887

Early progesterone cessation after in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a randomized, controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of stopping progesterone (P) support at week 5 versus week 8 on ongoing pregnancy rate after in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, controlled trial.

SETTING

University-affiliated infertility center.

PATIENT(S)

A total of 220 patients with intrauterine pregnancy demonstrated by transvaginal ultrasound after IVF/ICSI.

INTERVENTION(S)

Luteal phase support with micronized vaginal P was suspended at week 5 or at week 8.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Ongoing pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, and number of bleeding episodes.

RESULT(S)

Progesterone levels were similar on the day of the first pregnancy ultrasound exam (149 ± 108 vs. 167 ± 115 ng/mL). Significantly more bleeding episodes were observed in the first trimester in the group with early cessation of P supplementation (18.0 ± 2.6 vs. 7.2 ± 1.3 episodes). Miscarriage rates among singleton pregnancies were similar in the two groups (5/80 vs. 6/79).

CONCLUSION(S)

Vaginal P supplementation after IVF/ICSI can be safely withdrawn at 5 weeks' gestation, because cycle outcome was similar to conventional luteal phase support up to 8 weeks of pregnancy.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01177904.

Progesterone support in IVF: is evidence-based medicine translated to clinical practice? A worldwide web-based survey

This worldwide web-based survey compared the clinical practice for luteal-phase supplementation (LPS) in stimulated IVF cycles to the current evidence-based literature. Eighty-four treatment centres in 35 countries, representing a total of 51,155 IVF cycles/year, responded. Vaginal progesterone alone was used for LPS in 64% of cycles and in another 16% of cycles in combination with either i.m. (15%) or oral progesterone (1%). As a single agent, i.m. progesterone was used in 13% of cycles, oral progesterone in another 2% and human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) was still used in 5% of cycles. Progesterone was administered until 10-12 weeks' gestation in 67% of cycles and in 22% and 12% it was discontinued when fetal heart pulsations are recognized or until βHCG was positive, respectively. In conclusion, in almost two-thirds of the assisted cycles represented in this survey, vaginal administration of progesterone is preferred for LPS. Nevertheless, despite the available literature on the disadvantages of oral progesterone, i.m. progesterone and HCG for LPS, these agents are still used routinely by many practitioners. Furthermore, although there is no firm evidence to support the continuation of LPS until 10-12 weeks' gestation, this practice is used in the majority of IVF cycles worldwide.

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.

Association of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation treatment with down-regulation of key regulators involved in embryonic implantation in mice

The debate exists whether or not gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogs used in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) impair endometrial receptivity. Homeobox A11 (Hoxa11), Meis homeobox 1 (Meis1), cadherin 1 (Cdh1), and catenin beta 1 (Ctnnb1) are well known to be involved in successful implantation. In this study, the endometrial expression of Hoxa11, Meis1, Cdh1, and Ctnnb1 during the peri-implantation period was investigated in an in vitro fertilization (IVF) mouse model by real-time RT-PCR and Western blot to evaluate the relationship between Hoxa11, Meis1, Cdh1, and Ctnnb1 expression and the impact of the COH on endometrial receptivity. The mimic COH protocols included GnRH agonist plus human menopausal gonadotropin (HMG) (GnRH agonist group), GnRH antagonist plus HMG (GnRH antagonist group), and HMG alone (HMG group). The expression levels of Hoxa11, Meis1, Cdh1, and Ctnnb1 mRNA and protein were decreased in all of the COH groups. The expression levels of Hoxa11 and Ctnnb1 were the lowest in the GnRH agonist group, and those of Meis1 and Cdh1 were lower in the GnRH analog groups than the HMG group. There were positive correlations between the expression of Hoxa11 and Ctnnb1, as well as the expression of Meis1 and Cdh1 among all the groups. In conclusion, the COH protocols, particularly with GnRH analogs, suppressed Hoxa11, Meis1, Ctnnb1 and Cdh1 expression, in mouse endometrium during the peri-implantation period. Our data reveal a novel molecular mechanism by which the COH protocols might impair endometrial receptivity.

Estradiol supplementation during the luteal phase in poor responder patients undergoing in vitro fertilization: a randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

This study was designed to evaluate the effects of adding Estradiol (E2) supplementation to progesterone (P) on improvement of pregnancy outcomes in poor responder patients who underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF).

METHODS

In a prospective randomized clinical trial, 118 poor responder patients, older than 38 years without contraindications of estradiol consumption from Infertility clinic of a university hospital were randomly divided (by computerized software) into two groups. Control group (59 patients) received only P and intervention group (59 patients) received P and E2 (4 mg/d). Supplementation was done with 4 mg E2 in the luteal phase. Fertilization rate, implantation rate, biochemical and clinical pregnancy rates, abortion rate, ongoing pregnancy, multiple pregnancy and ectopic pregnancy rates were documented for those who completed the study protocol in each group (per protocol analysis) and compared between groups.

RESULT

Fifty five patients in control group and 53 patients in intervention group successfully completed the study protocol. Treatment outcomes were not significantly different between two groups.

CONCLUSION

For poor responder women who underwent IVF, addition of E2 to P supplementation could not significantly improve pregnancy outcomes.

II. Cognitive performance of middle-aged female rats is influenced by capacity to metabolize progesterone in the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus

Cognitive decline can occur with aging; however, some individuals experience less cognitive decline than do others. Secretion of ovarian hormones is reduced post-menopause and may contribute to cognitive function. The extent to which hormonal effects may be parsed out from other age-related factors to influence cognition is of interest. Middle-aged (12-month-old) female rats that were retired breeders were categorized as maintaining or declining reproductive function based upon their estrous cyclicity (regular 4-5 day cycles), fertility (> 60 % successful pregnancy), and fecundity (>10 pups/litter). Performance in object recognition, Y-maze, water maze, inhibitory avoidance, and contextual-cued fear conditioning was evaluated. Estradiol, progesterone (P(4)), dihydroprogesterone, and 5α-pregnan-3α-ol-20-one (3α,5α-THP) were assessed in medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) and hippocampus; corticosterone was assessed in plasma. Rats maintaining reproductive function performed significantly better on the object recognition, Y-maze, water maze, inhibitory avoidance, and cued fear conditioning tasks than did rats with declining reproductive function. Steroid concentrations varied greatly within groups. Higher levels of P(4) in mPFC and hippocampus were associated with better Y-maze performance. In mPFC, higher levels of P(4) were associated with poorer inhibitory avoidance performance; greater levels of 3α,5α-THP were associated with better object memory. Neither estradiol nor corticosterone levels significantly contributed to cognitive performance. Thus, the capacity for cortico-limbic P(4) utilization may influence cognitive performance in aging.

Drug delivery for in vitro fertilization: rationale, current strategies and challenges

In vitro fertilization has experienced phenomenal progress in the last thirty years and awaits the additional refinement and enhancement of medication delivery systems. Opportunity exists for the novel delivery of gonadotropins, progesterone and other adjuvants. This review highlights the rationale for various medications, present delivery methods and introduces the status of novel ideas and possibilities.

Luteal Phase Support in assisted reproductive technology treatment: focus on Endometrin(R) (progesterone) vaginal insert

Supplementation of progesterone in the luteal phase and continuance of progesterone therapy during the first trimester has been found in several studies to have benefits in promoting fertility, preventing miscarriages and even preventing pre-term labor. Though it can be administered orally, intramuscularly or even sublingually, a very effective route with fewer side effects can be achieved by an intravaginal route. The first vaginal preparations were not made commercially but were compounded by pharmacies. This had the disadvantage of lack of control by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ensuring efficacy of the preparations. Furthermore there was a lack of precise dosing leading to batch to batch variation. The first commercially approved vaginal progesterone preparation in the United States was a vaginal gel which has proven very effective. The main side effect was accumulation of a buildup of the vaginal gel sometimes leading to irritation. Natural micronized progesterone for vaginal administration with the brand name of Utrogestan A^® had been approved even before the gel in certain European countries. Endometrin^® vaginal tablets are the newest natural progesterone approved by the FDA. Comparisons to the vaginal gel and to intramuscular progesterone have shown similar efficacy especially in studies following controlled ovarian hyperstimulation and oocyte egg retrieval and embryo transfer. Larger studies are needed to compare side effects.

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection — ICSI

For more than a decade in vitro fertilization (IVF) has been successful in the treatment of couples with long-standing infertility due to various aetiologies such as tubal disease, male-factor infertility, unexplained infertility and endometriosis. The usual fertilization rate in IVF for nonmale infertility cases is 60–70% of the inseminated cumulus-oocyte complexes and in andrological infertility it is only 20–30%. The lower the number of normally fertilized oocytes, the less chance there is of available embryos, so that patients may have no embryos to transfer. It has been the experience of all centres for reproductive medicine, including our own, that a certain number of couples with male-factor infertility cannot be helped by standard IVF treatment. After insemination with progressively motile spermatozoa the number of two-pronuclear oocytes was either zero or less than 5%. Furthermore, a sizeable number of couples cannot be accepted for IVF if the number of progressively motile spermatozoa in the ejaculate is below a certain threshold number such as 500 000. In the past five years, assisted fertilization procedures have been developed to circumvent the barriers that prevent sperm access to the ooplasma, namely the zona pellucida and the ooplasmic membrane. Pregnancies and births have been reported after partial zona dissection (PZD) and subzonal insemination (SUZI). The success rate of PZD and SUZI has remained moderate: the normal fertilization rate (two-pronuclear oocytes) has never exceeded 20–25% of the micromanipulated oocytes; only two-thirds of the patients have had embryo transfers of, usually, a low number of embryos, resulting in a reduced pregnancy and take-home baby rate.

Impact of luteal phase support on pregnancy rates in intrauterine insemination cycles: a prospective randomized study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of luteal phase support on pregnancy rates in ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles with gonadotropins in couples with unexplained infertility.

DESIGN

Prospective randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

University-based infertility clinic.

PATIENT(S)

Two hundred fourteen couples with unexplained infertility who were treated during 427 ovarian stimulation and IUI cycles with recombinant FSH.

INTERVENTION(S)

Patients underwent ovarian stimulation with recombinant FSH combined with IUI. Patients randomized into the study group (n = 109) received luteal phase support in the form of vaginal progesterone gel (Crinone 8% gel). Patients randomized into the control group (n = 105) received no luteal phase support.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Clinical pregnancy and live birth rate per cycle and per patient.

RESULT(S)

Demographic data were found to be homogeneous between the study and control groups. Clinical pregnancy rates per cycle and per patient were significantly higher in the study group (21.1% and 39.4%, respectively) compared with the control group (12.7% and 23.8%, respectively). Live birth rate per cycle and per patient was also significantly higher in patients with luteal support (17.4% and 35.8%, respectively) compared with control subjects (9.3% and 18.1%, respectively).

CONCLUSION(S)

Luteal phase support with vaginal progesterone gel significantly affects the success of ovarian stimulation and IUI cycles in patients with unexplained infertility.

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.

Matched-samples comparison of intramuscular versus vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate vaginal compared to intramuscular (IM) progesterone supplementation for luteal phase support after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET).

DESIGN

Retrospective matched-samples comparative study.

SETTING

Private infertility center.

PATIENTS(S)

Two hundred forty patients undergoing IVF-ET.

INTERVENTION(S)

Patients received either vaginal progesterone supplementation in the form of Endometrin 100 mg twice a day (n = 12), Endometrin 100 mg three times a day (n = 11), or Crinone 8% gel 90 mg every day (n = 17), or 50 mg every day IM progesterone in oil (n = 200).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Clinical intrauterine pregnancy rates, pregnancy loss, and live birth rates.

RESULT(S)

Among patients using vaginal progesterone, there were no statistically significant differences in patient characteristics and clinical outcomes, regardless of the type of vaginal progesterone used. There were no differences in outcomes between the vaginal and IM progesterone treatment groups. There were 20 pregnancies (50.0%) among patients treated with vaginal progesterone and 103 pregnancies (51.5%) among matched IM progesterone patients. The live birth rates were 47% in the IM versus 47.5% in the vaginal progesterone groups. There were no statistically significant differences in miscarriage rates between groups.

CONCLUSION(S)

There are no significant differences in treatment outcomes between vaginal and IM progesterone supplementation, yielding similar clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and live birth rates.