The effect of adding oral oestradiol to progesterone as luteal phase support in ART cycles - a randomized controlled study

Effects of oestradiol for luteal phase support in fresh embryo transfer cycles: A retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Any benefit of oestradiol supplementation with progesterone for luteal support after fresh embryo transfer in in vitro fertilisation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) cycles remains controversial. In this study, we further addressed this question in cycles using gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist for ovarian stimulation.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study in a tertiary teaching and research hospital.

PATIENT(S)

A total of 1602 patients were given oestradiol valerate (E) in addition to progesterone (P) as luteal support. One thousand six hundred and two patients receiving progesterone alone were selected as the control group.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Live birth rate. Secondary measures included clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate and premature birth rate.

RESULT(S)

Clinical pregnancy and live birth rates were similar for the P alone vs the P+E group. In cycles with oestradiol (E2) levels less than 5000 pmol/L on the day of hCG trigger, E supplementation resulted in a significantly higher live birth rate (23.44% vs 32.92%, OR = 1.60 [95% CI 1.05 to 2.46]). In cycles with oestradiol levels 5000 to 10 000 pmol/L on the day of hCG trigger, E supplementation did not increase the live birth rate (34.43% vs 35.42%, OR = 0.90 [95% CI 0.80 to 1.01]). In cycles with oestradiol levels over 10 000 pmol/L on the day of hCG trigger, the live birth rate was significantly lower (36.83% vs 31.37%, OR = 0.78 [95% CI 0.62 to 0.99]) and the premature birth rate was significantly higher (19.66% vs 28.73%,OR = 1.65 [95% CI 1.05 to 2.59]) in the E supplementation group.

CONCLUSION(S)

Any benefit of oestradiol supplementation for luteal phase support appears to correlate with the serum oestradiol level on the day of hCG trigger. Oestradiol supplementation is beneficial for improving live birth rate in cycles with oestradiol levels less than 5000 pmol/L, but is not recommended in cycles with oestradiol levels over 10 000 pmol/L.

Plasmatic estradiol concentration in the mid-luteal phase is a good prognostic factor for clinical and ongoing pregnancies, during stimulated cycles of in vitro fertilization

Objective

To evaluate the predictive efficiency of serum estradiol (E₂) concentration in the mid-luteal phase regarding chemical, clinical, and ongoing pregnancies, in patients subjected to IVF/ICSI with fresh embryo transfer.

Methods

One hundred and forty-three patients undergoing IVF/ICSI met all the inclusion criteria for the present study. Most of the patients used antagonists, final maturation was achieved with recombinant chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG), and embryo transfer took place on days 3 to 5, but mostly on day 4. The luteal phase was supplemented with estradiol valerate 6 mg/day and vaginal micronized progesterone 600 mg/day. There was no exclusion of patients in the embryo transfer group due to age or ovarian reserve. All patients with estradiol and chorionic gonadotrophin (βHCG) dosage on the day of transfer, day 7, were included. We assessed the following variables, initially regarding age: number of eggs collected, formed embryos, embryos transferred, day of transfer, transfer type, estradiol and chorionic gonadotropin. Next, we evaluated these elements at three different ranges of estradiol concentrations (<200 pg/ml, 200-500 pg/ml, and >500 pg/ml), comparing these parameters in pregnant (P) and non-pregnant (NP) patients.

Results

Data analysis by age group in P and NP patients showed significant differences in the mean values of the variables E₂ and βHCG, TD7. Mean serum estradiol levels in P and NP in the three age groups were: <35years, 835/417 p=0.0006, 35-39 years 833/434 p=0.0118, >39 years, 841/394 p=0.0012. There was also a significant difference in pregnancy rates in the group >500 pg/ml of estradiol concentration (63.4%, p=0.0096). The likelihood of chemical and clinical abortions for the estradiol ranges were: 38.46%, involving the two first ranges versus 15.15% for a concentration >500 pg/ml, p=0.0412 and 5.26% for a concentration >900 pg/ml, p=0.0105. The Pearson correlation coefficient for HCG and estradiol was r = 0.5108.

Conclusion

This study showed the prognostic value of E₂ in the mid-luteal phase (TD7) for chemical, clinical, and ongoing pregnancies, and its concentration suggested that there is a moderately positive correlation with βHCG levels.

Evaluation of 1100 couples with recurrent pregnancy loss using conventional cytogenetic, PGD, and PGS: hype or hope

Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is an important clinical problem, mostly resulting from chromosomal or genetic defects, while in 30-60% of cases, it is idiopathic. The aim of this study is to evaluate the frequency and types of chromosomal abnormalities, also pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and pre-implantation genetic screening (PGS) outcomes among Iranian couples with RPL. This retrospective study was conducted on 1100 Iranian couples (2200 individuals) with RPL referred to Royan Institute between 2008 and 2014. Karyotyping had been performed using standard cytogenetic techniques. PGD results of RPL patients with abnormal karyotypes and PGS results of RPL patients with normal karyotypes were also analyzed. The frequency of chromosomal abnormalities in these patients was 4.95%. Women demonstrated more abnormalities (6.82%) in comparison to men (3.09%). The successful rate of pregnancy after PGD and PGS was 52 and 18.64%, respectively. The observation of 4.95% chromosomal abnormalities among the patients with RPL could support this hypothesis that there is a direct relationship between chromosomal abnormalities and RPL. More than half of the patients who underwent PGD had successful pregnancy; therefore, this approach can improve the success rate of pregnancy in them. The results of PGS cycles showed that this technique could increase the live birth rate in RPL patients.

The safety of intracytoplasmic sperm injection in men with hepatitis B

INTRODUCTION

In this study, we aimed to evaluate the safety of using different sources of sperm when male partners were infected with hepatitis B virus (HBV).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 338 couples receiving their first intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycle at the Department of Reproduction, Ren Ji Hospital, between 2007 and 2012 were enrolled if the female partner tested negative for HBV DNA, HBsAg, HBeAg, HBeAb and HBcAb. Couples were divided into HBV active infection (group B), convalescent infection (group C) and controls (group A). Subgroups were divided by source of sperm: ejaculated sperm and testicular sperm aspiration/percutaneous epididymal sperm aspiration (TESA/PESA) sperm.

RESULTS

When using ejaculated sperm for ICSI, two pronuclear (2PN) fertilization rate, implantation rate, clinical pregnant rate, early miscarriage rate and live birth rate showed no significant difference between the three groups. However, in the three TESA/PESA groups, the early miscarriage rate was highest in men with active HBV infection (B2) (23.1%, p = 0.035). The 2PN fertilization rate and CPR were also lower in the active infection group (76.7%, 26.3%) than the convalescent infection (82.9%, 36.2%) and control group (78.2%, 50%), but the difference was not statistically significant. No malformed infant was found in any of these groups.

CONCLUSIONS

When men have an active HBV infection, using TESA/PESA sperm may cause lower fertilization, a high miscarriage rate and a lower live birth rate, which indicates that HBV active infection may cause adverse effects on ICSI reproductive performance when using testicular or epididymal aspirated sperm.

The Effect of Prolonged Culture of Chromosomally Abnormal Human Embryos on The Rate of Diploid Cells

Background

A decrease in aneuploidy rate following a prolonged co-culture of human blastocysts has been reported. As co-culture is not routinely used in assisted reproductive technology, the present study aimed to evaluate the effect of the prolonged single culture on the rate of diploid cells in human embryos with aneuploidies.

Materials and Methods

In this cohort study, we used fluorescence in situ hybridi- zation (FISH) to reanalyze surplus blastocysts undergoing preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) on day 3 postfertilization. They were randomly studied on days 6 or 7 following fertilization.

Results

Of the 30 analyzed blastocysts, mosaicism was observed in 26(86.6%), while 2(6.7%) were diploid, and 2(6.7%) were triploid. Of those with mosaicism, 23(88.5%) were determined to be diploid-aneuploid and 3(11.5%) were aneuploid mosaic. The total frequency of embryos with more than 50% diploid cells was 33.3% that was lower on day 7 in comparison with the related value on day 6 (P<0.05); however, there were no differences when the embryos were classified according to maternal age, blastocyst developmental stage, total cell number on day 3, and embryo quality.

Conclusion

Although mosaicism is frequently observed in blastocysts, the prolonged single culture of blastocysts does not seem to increase the rate of normal cells.

A Comparison of the Effects of Transdermal Estradiol and Estradiol Valerate on Endometrial Receptivity in Frozen-thawed Embryo Transfer Cycles: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to determine the optimal endometrial preparation protocol by comparing the clinical outcome of two methods of endometrial preparation in frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycles, including that is, oral estradiol and 17ß-estradiol transdermal patch.

METHODS

In this randomized controlled trial, women underwent either conventional IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) who had at least two top-quality embryos appropriate for cryopreservation and frozen embryos from previous cycles. In the study group (n=45), 17-B estradiol transdermal patches 100 μg were applied from the second day of the cycle and continued every other day. Then, each patch was removed after four days. In the control group (n=45), oral estradiol valerate 6 mg was started at the same time and continued daily.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference in estradiol level on the day of progesterone administration and the day of embryo transfer between the two groups (p= 0.001 in both), but no significant difference was observed between them in biochemical and clinical pregnancy rates (32.6% vs. 33.3%, p=1.000 and 30.2% vs. 33.3%, p=0.810, respectively).

CONCLUSION

It is suggested that estradiol transdermal patches be used instead of oral estradiol in FET cycles. Due to the reduced costs, drug dose, and emotional stress as well as the simplicity of the protocol for patients.

Luteal phase support for assisted reproduction cycles

BACKGROUND

Progesterone prepares the endometrium for pregnancy by stimulating proliferation in response to human chorionic gonadotropin(hCG) produced by the corpus luteum. This occurs in the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. In assisted reproduction techniques(ART), progesterone and/or hCG levels are low, so the luteal phase is supported with progesterone, hCG or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists to improve implantation and pregnancy rates.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the relative effectiveness and safety of methods of luteal phase support provided to subfertile women undergoing assisted reproduction.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched databases including the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and trial registers. We conducted searches in November 2014, and further searches on 4 August 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of luteal phase support using progesterone, hCG or GnRH agonist supplementation in ART cycles.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95%confidence intervals (CIs) for each comparison and combined data when appropriate using a fixed-effect model. Our primary out come was live birth or ongoing pregnancy. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

Ninety-four women RCTs (26,198 women) were included. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias in most domains. The main limitations in the evidence were poor reporting of study methods and imprecision due to small sample sizes.1. hCG vs placebo/no treatment (five RCTs, 746 women)There was no evidence of differences between groups in live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.12, three RCTs,527 women, I2 = 24%, very low-quality evidence, but I2 of 61% was found for the subgroup of ongoing pregnancy) with a random effects model. hCG increased the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (1 RCT, OR 4.28, 95% CI 1.91 to 9.6, low quality evidence).2. Progesterone vs placebo/no treatment (eight RCTs, 875 women)Evidence suggests a higher rate of live birth or ongoing pregnancy in the progesterone group (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.86, five RCTs, 642 women, I2 = 35%, very low-quality evidence). OHSS was not reported.3. Progesterone vs hCG regimens (16 RCTs, 2162 women)hCG regimens included comparisons of progesterone versus hCG and progesterone versus progesterone + hCG. No evidence showed differences between groups in live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.38, five RCTs, 833 women, I2 = 0%, low quality evidence) or in the risk of OHSS (four RCTs, 615 women, progesterone vs hCG OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.34; four RCTs,678 women; progesterone vs progesterone plus hCG, OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.26, low-quality evidence).4. Progesterone vs progesterone with oestrogen (16 RCTs, 2577 women)No evidence was found of differences between groups in live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.38, nine RCTs,1651 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence) or OHSS (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.63, two RCTs, 461 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence).5. Progesterone vs progesterone + GnRH agonist (seven RCTs, 1708 women)Live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates were lower in the progesterone-only group and increased in women who received progester one and one or more GnRH agonist doses (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.81, nine RCTs, 2861 women, I2 = 55%, random effects, low quality evidence). Statistical heterogeneity for this comparison was high because of unexplained variation in the effect size, but the direction of effect was consistent across studies. OHSS was reported in one study only (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 3.01, 1 RCT, 300 women, very low quality evidence).6. Progesterone regimens (45 RCTs, 13,814 women)The included studies reported nine different comparisons between progesterone regimens. Findings for live birth or ongoing pregnancy were as follows: intramuscular (IM) versus oral: OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.66 (one RCT, 40 women, very low-quality evidence);IM versus vaginal/rectal: OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.5 (seven RCTs, 2309 women, I2 = 71%, very low-quality evidence); vaginal/rectal versus oral: OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.69 (four RCTs, 857 women, I2 = 32%, low-quality evidence); low-dose versus high-dose vaginal: OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11 (five RCTs, 3720 women, I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence); short versus long protocol:OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.36 (five RCTs, 1205 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence); micronised versus synthetic: OR 0.9, 95%CI 0.53 to 1.55 (two RCTs, 470 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence); vaginal ring versus gel: OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.36 (oneRCT, 1271 women, low-quality evidence); subcutaneous versus vaginal gel: OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14 (two RCTs, 1465 women,I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence); and vaginal versus rectal: OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.54 (one RCT, 147 women, very low-quality evidence). OHSS rates were reported for only two of these comparisons: IM versus oral, and low versus high-dose vaginal. No evidence showed a difference between groups.7. Progesterone and oestrogen regimens (two RCTs, 1195 women)The included studies compared two different oestrogen protocols. No evidence was found to suggest differences in live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates between a short and a long protocol (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.43, one RCT, 910 women, low-quality evidence) or between a low dose and a high dose of oestrogen (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.13, one RCT, 285 women, very low-quality evidence).Neither study reported OHSS.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Both progesterone and hCG during the luteal phase are associated with higher rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy than placebo.The addition of GnRHa to progesterone is associated with an improvement in pregnancy outcomes. OHSS rates are increased with hCG compared to placebo (only study only). The addition of oestrogen does not seem to improve outcomes. The route of progester one administration is not associated with an improvement in outcomes.

Estrogen supplementation to progesterone as luteal phase support in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization: systematic review and meta-analysis

Meta-analyses have found conflicting results with respect to the use of progesterone or progesterone plus estrogen as luteal phase support for in vitro fertilization (IVF) protocols involving gonadotropins and/or gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs. The aim of the present study was to perform an updated meta-analysis on the efficacy of progesterone versus progesterone plus estrogen as luteal phase support. We searched the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases (up to March 18, 2014). The search terms were (estrogen OR estradiol OR oestradiol) AND (progesterone) AND (IVF OR in vitro fertilization) AND (randomized OR prospective). We did not limit the form of estrogen and included subjects who contributed more than 1 cycle to a study. The primary outcome was clinical pregnancy rate. Secondary outcomes were ongoing pregnancy rate, fertilization rate, implantation rate, and miscarriage rate. A total of 11 articles were included in the present analysis, with variable numbers of studies assessing each outcome measure. Results of statistical analyses indicated that progesterone plus estrogen treatment was more likely to result in clinical pregnancy than progesterone alone (pooled odds ratio 1.617, 95% confidence interval 1.059-2.471; P = 0.026). No significant difference between the 2 treatment regimens was found for the other outcome measures. Progesterone plus estrogen for luteal phase support is associated with a higher clinical pregnancy rate than progesterone alone in women undergoing IVF, but other outcomes such as ongoing pregnancy rate, fertilization rate, implantation rate, and miscarriage rate are the same for both treatments.

Meta-analysis of estradiol for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether the addition of E(2) for luteal phase support (LPS) in IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) could improve the outcome of clinical pregnancy.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

SETTING

University hospital center.

PATIENT(S)

Women underwent IVF or ICSI using the GnRH agonist or GnRH antagonist protocol.

INTERVENTION(S)

Progesterone alone or combined with E(2) for LPS.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Clinical pregnancy rate per patient (CPR/PA), clinical pregnancy rate per ET, implantation rate, ongoing pregnancy rate per patient, clinical abortion rate, and ectopic pregnancy rate.

RESULT(S)

Fifteen relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified that included a total of 2,406 patients. There was no statistical difference between E(2) + P group and P-only group regarding the primary outcome of CPR/PA for different routes of administration of E(2) (oral, vaginal, and transdermal) or other relevant outcome measures. No significant effect was observed for different daily doses of E(2) (6, 4, and 2 mg), even through oral medication in CPR/PA.

CONCLUSION(S)

The best available evidence suggests that E(2) addition during the luteal phase does not improve IVF/ICSI outcomes through oral medication, even with different daily doses. Furthermore, RCTs that study other administration routes are needed.

Luteal estradiol supplementation in gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist cycles for infertile patients in vitro fertilization

Objective

To evaluate the effect of the addition of estradiol to luteal progesterone supplementation in GnRH antagonist cycles for infertile patients undergoing IVF/ICSI.

Methods

One hundred and ten infertile patients, aged 28 to 39 years, were recruited for this prospective randomized study. They were randomly assigned to receive vaginal progesterone gel (Crinone) along with 4 mg estradiol valerate (group 1, n=55) or only Crinone (group 2, n=55) for luteal support. A GnRH antagonist multiple dose protocol using recombinant human FSH was used for controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) in all of the subjects. The COS results and pregnancy outcomes of the two groups were compared.

Results

Group 1 and 2 were comparable with respect to the patient characteristics. The COS and IVF results were also comparable between the two groups. There were no differences in the clinical pregnancy rate (PR) and multiple PR between the two groups. However, the embryo implantation rate were significantly higher in group 1 than that in group 2 (22.2% vs. 13.3%, p=0.035). The incidence of luteal vaginal bleeding (LVB) was significantly lower in group 1 (7.4% vs. 27.8%, p=0.010).

Conclusion

The addition of estradiol to luteal progesterone supplementation in GnRH antagonist cycles reduces the incidence of LVB and increases the embryo implantation rate in infertile patients undergoing IVF/ICSI.