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

Construction of the machine learning-based live birth prediction models for the first in vitro fertilization pregnant women

BACKGROUND

This study was to conduct prediction models based on parameters before and after the first cycle, respectively, to predict live births in women who received fresh or frozen in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) for the first time.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study population consisted of 1,857 women undergoing the IVF cycle from 2019 to 2021 at Huizhou Municipal Central Hospital. The data between 2019 and 2020 were completely randomly divided into a training set and a validation set (8:2). The data from 2021 was used as the testing set, and the bootstrap validation was carried out by extracting 30% of the data for 200 times on the total data set. In the training set, variables are divided into those before the first cycle and after the first cycle. Then, predictive factors before the first cycle and after the first cycle were screened. Based on the predictive factors, four supervised machine learning algorithms were respectively considered to build the predictive models: logistic regression (LR), random forest (RF), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), and light gradient boosting machine (LGBM). The performances of the prediction models were evaluated by the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy.

RESULTS

Totally, 851 women (45.83%) had a live birth. The LGBM model showed a robust performance in predicting live birth before the first cycle, with AUC being 0.678 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.651 to 0.706] in the training set, 0.612 (95% CI: 0.553 to 0.670) in the validation set, 0.634 (95% CI: 0.511 to 0.758) in the testing set, and 0.670 (95% CI: 0.626 to 0.715) in the bootstrap validation. The AUC value in the training set, validation set, testing set, and bootstrap of LGBM to predict live birth after the first cycle was 0.841 (95% CI: 0.821 to 0.861), 0.816 (95% CI: 0.773 to 0.859), 0.835 (95% CI: 0.743 to 0.926), and 0.839 (95% CI: 0.806 to 0.871), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The LGBM model based on the predictive factors before and after the first cycle for live birth in women showed a good predictive performance. Therefore, it may assist fertility specialists and patients to adjust the appropriate treatment strategy.

Single-Dose Versus Multiple-Dose GnRH Agonist for Luteal-Phase Support in Women Undergoing IVF/ICSI Cycles: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Although gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist has been introduced as a beneficial luteal phase support (LPS), the optimal strategy of GnRH agonist remains unclear. This network meta-analysis was therefore performed to determine the comparative efficacy and safety of multiple-dose versus single-dose GnRH agonist protocol for LPS in patients undergoing IVF/ICSI cycles.

METHODS

We searched relevant studies in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from their inception util to September 2021. Live birth, clinical pregnancy rate, multiple pregnancy rate, and clinical abortion rate was evaluated. Pairwise and network meta-analysis were conducted using RevMan and ADDIS based on random-effects model, respectively. Moreover, the prioritization of protocols based on ranking probabilities for different outcomes were performed.

RESULTS

Sixteen RCTs met our eligibility criteria. Pairwise meta-analysis showed that multiple-dose protocol of GnRH agonist was effective for increasing live birth rate (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.83, p=0.01) and clinical pregnancy rate (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.56, p=0.05) as well as decreasing clinical abortion rate (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.90, p=0.02). Meanwhile, single-dose protocol of GnRH agonist was effective for increasing clinical pregnancy rate (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.89, p=0.007) and multiple pregnancy rate (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.12 to 5.78, p=0.03). However, network meta-analysis only confirmed that multiple-dose protocol of GnRH agonist was the best efficacious strategy for live birth rate (OR 2.04, 95% CrI 1.19 to 3.93) and clinical pregnancy rate (OR 2.10, 95% CrI 1.26 to 3.54).

CONCLUSION

Based on the results of NMA, multiple-dose protocol may be the optimal strategy for patients undergoing IVF/ICSI cycles owing to its advantage in increasing live birth and clinical pregnancy rate. Moreover, single-dose protocol may be the optimal strategy for improving multiple pregnancy rate. However, with the limitations, more RCTs are required to confirm our findings.

Co-administration of GnRH agonists with vaginal progesterone compared to vaginal progesterone in luteal phase support of the frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycle: An RCT

Background

Since progesterone alone does not seem to be enough for luteal phase support (LPS), especially in frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles, so gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) is suggested as an adjuvant therapy in combination with progesterone for LPS.

Objective

To evaluate the effects of the administration of GnRH-a with vaginal progesterone compared to vaginal progesterone alone in luteal phase support of the frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles.

Materials and Methods

In this randomized controlled clinical trial, 240 infertile women who were candidates for FET were evaluated into two groups (n = 120/each). Group I received 400 mg vaginal progesterone twice a day from the time of transfer. The second group received vaginal progesterone and also 0.1 mg diphereline on days 0, 3, and 6 of FET for LPS. Finally, the clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates, and the implantation, and spontaneous abortion rates were compared in two groups.

Results

Results showed that there was no significant difference between the mean age of women and the duration of infertility (p = 0.78, p = 0.58, respectively). There were no significant differences between groups in the terms of implantation and spontaneous abortion rates (p = 0.19, p = 0.31, respectively). However, in terms of clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates, the significant differences were seen between groups (p = 0.008 and p = 0.005, respectively).

Conclusion

Co-administration of GnRH-a and vaginal progesterone in LPS may be superior to vaginal progesterone alone in women who underwent a frozen-selected embryo transfer cycle.

Effects of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) as luteal phase support in intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles: a randomized controlled trial

Background

This paper describes a blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) designed to evaluate the effect of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) administration on outcomes of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in subjects stimulated with the gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol. A total of 268 women who underwent ICSI cycles with GnRH antagonist ovarian stimulation protocol were included in the study. Patients were randomly assigned to the intervention (GnRH-a) and control groups. The intervention group received a single dose injection of triptorelin (0.1 mg) subcutaneously 6 days after oocyte retrieval while the control group received placebo. The rates of chemical and clinical pregnancy were defined as the primary outcome values.

Results

Two hundred forty participants accomplished the study, and their data were analyzed. No significant difference was detected between the chemical pregnancy rates of the intervention and control groups. However, the clinical pregnancy rate was significantly higher in the GnRH-a group than in the placebo group.

Conclusions

The findings of the present study suggest that the GnRH-a support in the luteal phase can result in a significant improvement of pregnancy rates in ICSI cycles following the ovarian stimulation with GnRH antagonist protocol.

Clinical pregnancy following GnRH agonist administration in the luteal phase of fresh or frozen assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective(s)

To study if the GnRH agonist administration in luteal phase improves clinical pregnancy rate of fresh and frozen embryo transfer. Also, this meta-analysis compares the treatment effect of luteal GnRH agonist administration between long agonist and antagonist protocols of fresh cycles, and between two types of treatment: fresh and frozen embryo transfers.

Study design

Systematic review and meta-analysis (registration number CRD42017059152)

Results

For the overall 20 studies (5497 patients), clinical pregnancy rate significantly increased in group of GnRH agonist administration compared to control group (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.14–1.34, p < 0.0001). Regarding the treatment effect of luteal GnRH agonist administration between long agonist and antagonist protocol fresh cycles, no significant difference was observed (RR = 1.28, 95% CI 0.98–1.67, p = 0.07). Also, in comparison between fresh and frozen embryo transfer, similar effect of GnRH agonist administration was found (RR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.74–1.16, p = 0.49).

Conclusion(s)

There is evidence that GnRH agonist administration in luteal phase improve clinical pregnancy rate in both fresh and frozen cycles. Within fresh cycles, no significant difference of clinical pregnancy rate is found between two protocols. In frozen cycles, the effect of GnRH agonist administration in enhancing clinical pregnancy rate is similar to fresh cycles.

Administration of a GnRH agonist during the luteal phase frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles: a meta-analysis

At present, the precise role of GnRH agonists during the luteal phase remains uncertain. In the present study, a meta-analysis was used to evaluate the effect of administering a GnRH agonist to during the luteal phase in patients undergoing FET cycles. A literature review was carried out by searching the current content of MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and Ovid. We particularly focused upon implantation rate, CPR per transfer, and ongoing pregnancy rate. All of the trials analyzed involved a GnRH agonist administered during the luteal phase. Six trials involving 1137 women were included in our meta-analysis. All of the cycles analyzed exhibited significantly higher implantation rates, clinical pregnancy rates, and ongoing pregnancy rates in the group of patients administered with a GnRH agonist during the luteal phase compared with the control group that did not receive a GnRH agonist during the luteal phase. Our data, therefore, demonstrate that the administration of a GnRH agonist during the luteal phase can significantly increase clinical pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy rates in FET cycles. The implantation rates, clinical pregnancy rates, and ongoing pregnancy rates can significantly increase in the group of patients administered with a GnRH agonist in natural cycle FET.

Mid-luteal phase gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist support in frozen-thawed embryo transfers during artificial cycles: A prospective interventional pilot study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of an additional single mid-luteal dose of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) on pregnancy and perinatal outcomes in hormonally substituted frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles.

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective interventional pilot study. Women scheduled for FET were randomly selected to receive standard hormonal replacement therapy (HRT) for endometrial preparation or HRT with a single additional subcutaneous dose of 0.1mg triptorelin at the time of implantation. If FET was not followed by a pregnancy, women with surplus embryos were scheduled for a single second attempt in a crossover setting. Altogether, 144 FET cycles were analyzed. The carryover effect was tested using a logistic regression model. Logistic regression analysis for binary variables was applied with generalized estimation equation extension to account for dependence among repeated treatments.

RESULTS

The live birth rate (LBR) was 9.8 percentage points higher and the miscarriage rate 14.7 percentage points lower in the intervention group (n=72) than in the control group (n=72), but the differences did not reach statistical significance. Implantation and clinical pregnancy rates were comparable between the groups. No congenital malformations or differences in the median birth weight of newborns were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Observable but statistically insignificant difference in LBR and miscarriage rate favoring luteal phase GnRHa support was detected. Further, no malformations or effect on fetal growth were observed. Larger studies are needed to confirm the results of this pilot study.

Impact of Mid-Luteal Phase GnRH Agonist Administration on Reproductive Outcomes in GnRH Agonist-Triggered Cycles: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To explore whether the addition of a mid-luteal bolus of GnRH agonist (GnRHa) improves the implantation rate (IR) in in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles.

DESIGN

A randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Private IVF center.

PATIENTS

328 IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients were triggered with GnRHa and received 1,500 IU HCG on the day of oocyte pick-up (OPU) in addition to a standard luteal phase support (LPS).

INTERVENTIONS

In addition, the study group received a bolus of GnRHa 6 days after OPU, whereas the control group did not.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Implantation rate.

SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Ongoing pregnancy (OP) and live birth (LB) rates.

RESULTS

Although serum concentrations of FSH, LH, E2, and P on day OPU + 7 were significantly higher in the study group compared to the control group, the IR was not statistically different between the treatment group (27%) and the control group (23%) [odds ratio (OR) 1.2 (95% CI 0.9-1.7), P < 0.27]. Similarly, the OP rate was 37% in the treatment group and 31% in the control group [OR 1.3 (95% CI 0.8-2.0), P < 0.23]. The LB rate was 36% in the treatment group and 31% in the control group [OR: 1.3 (95% CI 0.8-2.0), P < 0.27].

CONCLUSION

Although a trend toward a higher IR and pregnancy rate was observed in the treatment group, this difference was not statistically significant. However, the absolute risk difference of 5% found for LB is clinically relevant, warranting further investigation.

NCT

02053779.

Impact of Mid-Luteal Phase GnRH Agonist Administration on Reproductive Outcomes in GnRH Agonist-Triggered Cycles: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To explore whether the addition of a mid-luteal bolus of GnRH agonist (GnRHa) improves the implantation rate (IR) in in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles.

DESIGN

A randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Private IVF center.

PATIENTS

328 IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients were triggered with GnRHa and received 1,500 IU HCG on the day of oocyte pick-up (OPU) in addition to a standard luteal phase support (LPS).

INTERVENTIONS

In addition, the study group received a bolus of GnRHa 6 days after OPU, whereas the control group did not.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Implantation rate.

SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Ongoing pregnancy (OP) and live birth (LB) rates.

RESULTS

Although serum concentrations of FSH, LH, E2, and P on day OPU + 7 were significantly higher in the study group compared to the control group, the IR was not statistically different between the treatment group (27%) and the control group (23%) [odds ratio (OR) 1.2 (95% CI 0.9-1.7), P < 0.27]. Similarly, the OP rate was 37% in the treatment group and 31% in the control group [OR 1.3 (95% CI 0.8-2.0), P < 0.23]. The LB rate was 36% in the treatment group and 31% in the control group [OR: 1.3 (95% CI 0.8-2.0), P < 0.27].

CONCLUSION

Although a trend toward a higher IR and pregnancy rate was observed in the treatment group, this difference was not statistically significant. However, the absolute risk difference of 5% found for LB is clinically relevant, warranting further investigation.

NCT

02053779.

GnRH agonist during luteal phase in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To identify, evaluate and summarize the available evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of administering a gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist during the luteal phase in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the addition of a GnRH agonist during the luteal phase, compared with standard luteal-phase support. We searched seven electronic databases and hand-searched the reference lists of included studies and related reviews. Our primary outcome was live birth or ongoing pregnancy per randomized woman. Our secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy per randomized woman, miscarriage per clinical pregnancy, adverse perinatal outcome and congenital malformations.

RESULTS

The evidence from eight studies examining 2776 women showed a relative risk (RR) for live birth or ongoing pregnancy of 1.26 (95% CI, 1.04-1.53; I(2) = 58%). Sensitivity analysis when excluding the studies that did not report live birth and those at high risk of bias resulted in one study examining 181 women with an RR of 1.07 (95% CI, 0.73-1.58). Subgroup analysis separating the studies by single/multiple doses of GnRH agonists or by ovarian stimulation with GnRH agonist/antagonist was unable to explain the observed heterogeneity. The quality of the evidence was deemed to be very low: it was downgraded because of the limitation of the included studies, imprecision, inconsistency across the studies' results, and suspicion of publication bias. None of the included studies reported adverse perinatal outcomes or congenital malformations.

CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that adding GnRH agonist during the luteal phase improves the likelihood of ongoing pregnancy. However, this evidence is of very low quality and there is no evidence for adverse perinatal outcome and congenital malformations. We therefore believe that including this intervention in clinical practice would be premature.

Effects of single dose GnRH agonist as luteal support on pregnancy outcome in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles: an RCT

BACKGROUND

There is no doubt that luteal phase support is essential to enhance the reproductive outcome in IVF cycles. In addition to progesterone and human chorionic gonadotropin, several studies have described GnRH agonists as luteal phase support to improve implantation rate, pregnancy rate and live birth rate, whereas other studies showed dissimilar conclusions. All of these studies have been done in fresh IVF cycles.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether an additional GnRH agonist administered at the time of implantation for luteal phase support in frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) improves the embryo developmental potential.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a prospective controlled trial study in 200 FET cycles, patients were randomized on the day of embryo transfer into group 1 (n=100) to whom a single dose of GnRH agonist (0.1 mg triptorelin) was administered three days after transfer and group 2 (n=100), who did not receive agonist. Both groups received daily vaginal progesterone suppositories plus estradiol valerate 6 mg daily. Primary outcome measure was clinical pregnancy rate. Secondary outcome measures were implantation rate, chemical, ongoing pregnancy rate and abortion rate.

RESULTS

A total of 200 FET cycles were analyzed. Demographic data and embryo quality were comparable between two groups. No statistically significant difference in clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates was observed between the two groups (26% versus 21%, p=0.40 and 21% versus 17%, p=0.37, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Administration of a subcutaneous GnRH agonist at the time of implantation does not increase clinical or ongoing pregnancy.

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.

Contribution to More Patient-Friendly ART Treatment: Efficacy of Continuous Low-Dose GnRH Agonist as the Only Luteal Support-Results of a Prospective, Randomized, Comparative Study

Background. The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate intranasal buserelin for luteal phase support and compare its efficacy with standard vaginal progesterone in IVF/ICSI antagonist cycles. Methods. This is a prospective, randomized, open, parallel group study. Forty patients underwent ovarian hyperstimulation with human menopausal gonadotropin under pituitary inhibition with gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, while ovulation trigger and luteal support were achieved using intranasal GnRH agonist (group A). Twenty patients had their cycle downregulated with buserelin and stimulated with hMG, while ovulation trigger was achieved using 10,000 IU human chorionic gonadotropin with luteal support by intravaginal progesterone (group B). Results. No difference was observed in estradiol levels. Progesterone levels on day 5 were significantly lower in group A. However, significantly higher levels of luteinizing hormone were observed in group A during the entire luteal phase. Pregnancy rates (31.4% versus 22.2%), implantation rates (22% versus 15.4%), and clinical pregnancy rates (25.7% versus 16.7%) were not statistically different between groups, although a trend towards higher rates was observed in group A. No luteal phase lasting less than 10 days was recorded in either group. Conclusion. Intranasal administration of buserelin is effective for providing luteal phase support in IVF/ICSI antagonist protocols.

The addition of gonadotrophin releasing hormone agonist to routine luteal phase support in intracytoplasmic sperm injection and embryo transfer cycles: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of addition of different dosages of gonadotrophin releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) to routine luteal phase support (LPS) on implantation and pregnancy rates.

STUDY DESIGN

Three hundred infertile couples who were treated by intracytoplasmic sperm injection and embryo transfer (ICSI-ET) following controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) with long luteal GnRH agonist protocol were enrolled. All women received 600 mg/day vaginal micronized progesterone plus 4 mg 17β estradiol for LPS starting from the day of oocyte retrieval. Patients (n=300) were randomized into three treatment groups. Group A (n=100) received leuprolide acetate 1 mg s.c. injection 3 days after ET in addition to routine LPS. Group B (n=100) received two sequential doses of leuprolide acetate 1 mg s.c. injections 3 and 6 days after ET in addition to routine LPS. Control group (n=100) received only the routine LPS.

RESULTS

A total of 279 patients completed the study. The groups were comparable in terms of baseline demographic parameters including age, duration of infertility and day 3 levels of FSH and estradiol. The cycle parameters of the groups were also comparable regarding the E2 level on day of hCG, number of retrieved oocytes, number of day 3 embryos, number of embryos transferred, and endometrial thickness on both days of OPU and ET. The implantation rates were similar in between the Groups A, B, and control group (20.7% and 25.8% vs. 13.3%, respectively; P=.099). The clinical pregnancy rates and miscarriage rates were similar in between the groups. The ongoing pregnancy rates were 27.4% in control group, 36% in Group A and 42.9% in Group B (P=.093). The OHSS rates were comparable in between the groups. The multiple pregnancy rates were significantly higher in Groups A and B than in control group (12% and 17.9% vs. 4.2%, respectively; P=.014).

CONCLUSIONS

The implantation, clinical pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy and multiple pregnancy rates seem to be increased with the addition of GnRH-a to routine luteal phase support.