Effects of two different types of luteal support on pregnancy outcomes following antagonist fresh embryo transfer: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Only a small number of studies have reported the use of progesterone vaginal gel in combination with dydrogesterone as part of the antagonist protocol for fresh embryo transfer. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the effects of two types of luteal support on pregnancy outcomes following the antagonist protocol for fresh embryo transfer. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of clinical data from infertile patients who underwent fresh embryo transfer via the antagonist protocol (2785 cycles) between February and July 2019 and between February and July 2021 at the Peking University Third Hospital Reproductive Medicine Centre. According to the luteal support received, the cycle groups were divided into the progesterone vaginal gel group (single medication or VP group; 1170 cycles) and the progesterone vaginal gel plus dydrogesterone group (combination medication or DYD + VP group; 1615 cycles). After propensity score matching, the clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, early miscarriage, and ectopic pregnancy rates were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: In total, 1057 pairs of cycles were successfully matched via propensity scores. The clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates in the combination medication group were significantly higher than those in the single medication group (P < 0.05), whereas no significant differences were noted in the early miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy rates between the two groups (both P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Combined luteal support after the antagonist protocol is preferred for patients undergoing fresh cycle embryo transfer.

The addition of dydrogesterone improves the outcomes of pregnant women with low progesterone levels when receiving vaginal progesterone alone as luteal support in HRT-FET cycles.

Purpose: Vaginal progesterone (VP) alone has been used as luteal support (LS) in HRT-FET cycles without measuring serum progesterone concentrations (SPC) because it can achieve adequate intrauterine progesterone levels. However, several reports showed that the co-administration of progestin produced better outcomes than VP alone. We tried to address this discrepancy, focusing on SPC. Methods: VP was given to 180 women undergoing HRT-FET. We measured SPC when pregnancy was diagnosed on day 14 of LS. We compared assisted reproductive technology outcomes between VP alone versus VP + dydrogesterone (D). Results: When using VP alone, average SPC in the miscarriage cases (9.6 ng/mL) were significantly lower compared with the ongoing pregnancy (OP) cases (14.7 ng/mL). The cut-off value for progesterone, 10.7 ng/mL, was a good predictor for the subsequent course of the pregnancy. Of 76 women receiving D ± VP from the start of LS and achieving a pregnancy, the numbers of OP were 44 (84.6%) in SPC ≥ 10.7 ng/mL and 20 (83.3%) in SPC ≤ 10.7 ng/mL with no significant difference. Conclusion: VP alone resulted in lower SPC in some pregnant women in HRT-FET cycles and exhibited a lower OP rate. The co-administration of D improved an OP rate of low progesterone cases to the level comparable with non-low progesterone cases.

Membranous dysmenorrhoea in a woman undergoing hormone replacement preparation for embryo transfer - a peculiar case.

Membranous dysmenorrhoea is an uncommon condition characterized by the spontaneous flaking of endometrium into a single piece that maintains the shape of the uterus. The common symptom of membranous dysmenorrhoea is a colicky pain caused by uterine contractions. Because only a limited number of cases have been published in the literature, the case report we present is peculiar. This report describes a case of membranous dysmenorrhoea that occurred after an artificial frozen thawed embryo transfer cycle using vaginal progesterone. The patient, during hormone replacement treatment, reported an intense abdominal colicky pain resulting in the loss of membranous endometrial tissue. A histopathological exam was performed with a clear diagnosis of membranous dysmenorrhoea. Moreover, photos were recorded and provided together with this article. The importance of such a case report relies on the actual debate about the appropriate progesterone route of administration. Although different medical approaches exist, progesterone administration is the most widespread. However, the intramuscular, oral, and subcutaneous means of administration are gaining popularity. On this peculiar case report, the patient underwent a subsequent frozen thawed embryo transfer cycle with subcutaneous progesterone administration. The embryo transfer resulted first in a clinical pregnancy and subsequently in a spontaneous delivery without any complications.

The follicular-phase depot GnRH agonist protocol results in a higher live birth rate without discernible differences in luteal function and child health versus the daily mid-luteal GnRH agonist protocol: a single-centre, retrospective, propensity score matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) has been used in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) cycles for a long time. This paper evaluates the efficacy and safety of two commonly used protocols (follicular-phase depot GnRH-a protocol and daily mid-luteal long GnRH-a protocol) in normal responders undergoing IVF/ICSI using propensity score matching (PSM) analysis. METHODS: A total of 6,816 infertile women treated within the period from January 2016 to September 2020 were stratified into cohorts. A total of 2,851 patients received the long-acting group (depot GnRH-a protocol), and 1,193 used the short-acting group (long GnRH-a protocol) after the data-selection process. PSM was utilized for sampling by up to 1:1 nearest neighbour matching to adjust the numerical difference and balance the confounders between groups. The primary outcome was the live birth rate (LBR). Multivariable logistic analysis was used to evaluate the difference between these two protocols in relation to the LBR. RESULT(S): In this study, 1:1 propensity score matching was performed to create a perfect match of 964 patients in each group. After matching, the blastocyst formation rates, oestradiol (E2) value on Day hCG + 9, progesterone (P) value on Day hCG + 9, implantation rates, clinical pregnancy rates, and LBR were more favourable in the depot GnRH-a protocol than in the long GnRH-a protocol (P < 0.05). However, the moderate or severe OHSS rates were higher in the depot group than in the long group (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in endometrial thickness, luteal support medication, early pregnancy loss rates, mid- and late-term pregnancy loss rates, or foetal malformation rates between the two protocols. CONCLUSION(S): Compared with the daily short-acting GnRH agonist protocol, the follicular-phase depot GnRH-a protocol might improve LBRs in normogonadotropic women without discernible differences in luteal function and child health.

Single-administered GnRH agonist as luteal phase support in insemination cycles: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To find out whether a single-administered GnRH agonist improves the live birth rate in real-life patients undergoing intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, randomized controlled trial in a public single tertiary center in Tampere University Hospital, Finland. Altogether 251 IUI cycles in 163 patients were randomized to triptorelin and a control group between January 2017 and April 2019. In the triptorelin group, the participants had a single administration of a subcutaneous GnRH agonist triptorelin 0.1 mg at the time of implantation. In the control group, there was no luteal phase support. The primary outcome measure was the live birth rate (LBR). The secondary outcome measures were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and miscarriage rate. RESULTS: Overall, the live birth rate was lower in the triptorelin group compared to the control group (7.9 vs. 12.1%; p = .297). The clinical pregnancy rates were 12.6 and 13.7%, respectively. There were 2.4% miscarriages in the triptorelin group and no miscarriages in the control group. Ovarian stimulation with letrozole was associated with lower LBR among the triptorelin group, in comparison to the control group (0 vs. 14.7%, p = .020). In contrast, when gonadotrophin was added to the letrozole, LBR was almost doubled compared to the control group (15.9 vs. 8.3%, p = .341). CONCLUSION: A single administration of GnRH agonist in the luteal phase does not improve LBR in IUI cycles.

A multi-centre international study of salivary hormone oestradiol and progesterone measurements in ART monitoring.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Ovarian stimulation during IVF cycles involves close monitoring of oestradiol, progesterone and ultrasound measurements of follicle growth. In contrast to blood draws, sampling saliva is less invasive. Here, a blind validation is presented of a novel saliva-based oestradiol and progesterone assay carried out in samples collected in independent IVF clinics. DESIGN: Concurrent serum and saliva samples were collected from 324 patients at six large independent IVF laboratories. Saliva samples were frozen and run blinded. A further 18 patients had samples collected more frequently around the time of HCG trigger. Saliva samples were analysed using an immunoassay developed with Salimetrics LLC. RESULTS: In total, 652 pairs of saliva and serum oestradiol were evaluated, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.68 to 0.91. In the European clinics, a further 237 of saliva and serum progesterone samples were evaluated; however, the correlations were generally poorer, ranging from -0.02 to 0.22. In the patients collected more frequently, five out of 18 patients (27.8%) showed an immediate decrease in oestradiol after trigger. When progesterone samples were assessed after trigger, eight out of 18 (44.4%) showed a continued rise. CONCLUSIONS: Salivary oestradiol hormone testing correlates well to serum-based assessment, whereas progesterone values, around the time of trigger, are not consistent from patient to patient.

Time, time, time: see what governs the luteal phase endocrinology.

Two modes of ovulation trigger are used in IVF: hCG, acting on ovarian LH receptors, and GnRH agonist, eliciting pituitary LH and FSH surges. These two modes are evaluated herein, focusing on how they serve specific time-sensitive events crucial for achieving embryo implantation and pregnancy. hCG trigger is associated with significant timing deviation from physiology. Peak progesterone is not synchronized with implantation window; progesterone level does not rise continuously to a mid-luteal peak, but rather drops from a too early peak. The luteal phase endocrinology post GnRH agonist trigger is characterized by a quick and irreversible luteolysis. Therefore, freeze all strategy is advised, if there is a risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. If fresh transfer is desired, numerous approaches for luteal phase support have been suggested. However, a thorough understanding of time-sensitive events suggests that a single 1,500 IU hCG dose, administered 48 h post oocyte retrieval, is all that is needed to fully support the luteal phase and secure best chances of achieving pregnancy.

Route of administration of exogenous progesterone for luteal support does not significantly affect the serum concentration in assisted reproductive technology.

The objective of this research is to study the guiding role of serum progesterone level on exogenous luteal support protocols. In the retrospective study, a total of 537 infertile women undergoing IVF/ICSI were recruited. Serum samples were obtained for serum progesterone measurements. The results demonstrated that the progesterone levels of all women gradually decreased over the course of 7 days after ET. The progesterone level of the pregnant women reached a nadir on day 7 after ET and subsequently began to rise, while the progesterone level of the non-pregnant women continued to decrease. Even with different routes of administration of exogenous progesterone, the progesterone levels followed the same patterns. The serum progesterone level does not represent the adequacy of exogenous progesterone supplementation. Therefore, there is no need to measure serum progesterone levels frequently after embryo transfer or adjust the dose according to serum progesterone levels.

GnRH agonist triggering followed by 1500 IU of HCG 48 h after oocyte retrieval for luteal phase support.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist trigger after GnRH antagonist-based ovarian stimulation protocol for IVF is gaining popularity, because it prevents ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and allows for near physiological LH and FSH surges. A small dose of HCG (1500 IU) on the day of oocyte retrieval, followed by daily progesterone administration, is currently the preferred way to secure adequate luteal support after GnRH agonist trigger. In the present study, the possibility that a bolus of 1500 IU HCG, given 2 days after oocyte retrieval, may be sufficient to sustain adequate luteal support without additional progesterone treatment was questioned. DESIGN: A non-interventional retrospective cohort study between conducted between April 2017 and August 2018. A total of 154 consecutive patients treated with GnRH agonist trigger followed by day-2 HCG (1500 IU) support only (study group) were included. Data were compared with 155 consecutive patients who were treated with HCG (6500 IU) trigger followed by conventional progesterone luteal support (control group). RESULTS: Pregnancy, miscarriage and live birth rates were comparable between the study and control groups. In patients who became pregnant, mean oestradiol level 14 days after oocyte retrieval was 4719 pmol/l and 2672 pmol/l in the study and control group, respectively (P < 0.001), reflecting robust luteal activity in the study group. CONCLUSIONS: A bolus of 1500 IU HCG, administered 2 days after retrieval, can provide excellent luteal support, without the need for further progesterone supplementation.

Comparison of oral dydrogesterone and vaginal micronized progesterone for luteal phase support in intrauterine insemination.

This study aims to compare the pregnancy outcomes of vaginal micronized progesterone capsules with oral dydrogesterone in subjects with unexplained subfertility who are undergoing IUI in conjunction with ovarian stimulation by using rFSH. A total of 432 patients with unexplained subfertility who underwent IUI in conjunction with ovarian stimulation were enrolled in this retrospective study. Patients were randomized into two groups: (1) dydrogesterone or (2) vaginal micronized progesterone capsules, for luteal phase support. Clinical pregnancy and live birth were the primary outcome measures of the present study. Dydrogesterone was used in 233 participants (54%) and 337 cycles, while 199 participants (46%) and 233 cycles received vaginal micronized progesterone capsule treatment. The proportion of clinical pregnancies (7.4% vs. 10.2%, p = .213), live births (68% vs. 73%, p = .286) were similar in the two groups. Oral dydrogesterone and vaginal micronized progesterone provide similar pregnancy outcomes in terms of clinical pregnancy and live birth rates in women undergoing IUI in conjunction with ovarian stimulation with rFSH. Given the simple and easy administration, lack of safety concerns and better patient tolerability, we suggest that oral dydrogesterone might be preferred for luteal phase support in IUI.

Effect of Gonadotrophin-Releasing Hormone Agonist Addition for Luteal Support on Pregnancy Outcome in vitro Fertilization/Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection Cycles: A Meta-Analysis Based on Randomized Controlled Trials.

PURPOSE: The meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) addition for luteal support on pregnancy outcome in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles. METHODS: Meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 3,584 cycles were identified from 13 randomized controlled trials. The cumulative analysis showed that GnRH-a addition for luteal supports significantly improved live birth rate (relative risk [RR] = 1.52; 95% CI 1.20-1.94; p = 0.0006), the clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.11-1.33; p < 0.0001), ongoing pregnancy rate (RR 1.18; 95% CI 1.06-1.32; p = 0.004), pregnancy rate (RR 1.36; 95% CI 1.01-1.82; p = 0.04), implantation rate (RR 1.44; 95% CI 1.17-1.77; p = 0.0007), and multiple pregnancy rate (RR 1.40; 95% CI 1.04-1.88; p = 0.03) in comparison with control, but not for the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.32-2.89; p = 0.94). We also found that GnRH-a addition for luteal support had a tendency to decrease the abortion rate (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.56-0.93; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the current meta-analysis showed a substantial efficacy of GnRH-a addition for luteal support on pregnancy outcomes in women undergoing IVF/ICSI and support the use of GnRH-a in luteal phase to improve the success of IVF/ICSI.

Luteal phase support with GnRH agonist does not eliminate the risk for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.

This study aims to report a case of early, severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) following GnRH agonist trigger for final oocyte maturation despite luteal support with a GnRH agonist. Contrary to the claim that luteal support using a GnRH agonist eliminates the risk for OHSS in high-risk patients, this report alerts practitioners to the risk of severe OHSS development despite GnRH agonist luteal support in patients receiving GnRH antagonist protocol with GnRH agonist triggering and cautions the practitioners to consider other measures of OHSS prevention.

Progestogens and pregnancy loss.

Progestational agents are often prescribed to prevent pregnancy loss. Progestogens affect implantation, cytokine balance, natural killer cell activity, arachidonic acid release and myometrial contractility. Progestogens have therefore been used at all stages of pregnancy including luteal-phase support prior to pregnancy, threatened miscarriage, recurrent miscarriage, and to prevent preterm labor. In luteal support, a Cochrane review reported that progestogens were associated with a higher rate of live births or ongoing pregnancy in the progesterone group (odds ratio 1.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09-2.86). Evidence suggests that progestogens are also effective for treating threatened miscarriage. Again, in a Cochrane Database review, progestogens were associated with a reduced odds ratio of 0.53 (95% CI 0.35-0.79) when progestogens were used. In recurrent miscarriage, progestogens also seem to have a beneficial effect. A meta-analysis of progestational agents showed a 28% increase in the live birth rate (relative risk 0.72, 95% CI 0.53-0.97). For the last 30 years, progestogens have been used to prevent preterm labor. Recent meta-analyses also report beneficial effects. This review summarizes the literature and the author's experience using progestogens to prevent pregnancy loss.

Does pituitary suppression affect live birth rate in women with congenital hypogonadotrophic hypogonadism undergoing intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection? A multicenter cohort study.

In this retrospective multicenter cohort study, women with congenital hypogonadotrophic hypogonadism (CHH) (n = 57) who underwent intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection in-between 2010-2014 were compared to age-matched controls with tubal factor infertility (n = 114) to assess ovarian stimulation cycle and pregnancy outcomes. Live birth rates (LBRs) per started cycle were 31.6 and 24.6% in CHH and controls groups, respectively (p = 0.36). Comparable success rates were also confirmed with the logistic regression analysis (OR: 1.44, 95% CI: 0.78-2.67, p = 0.24). Of the 57 women with CHH, 19 were stimulated with the gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol, 13 with the long-GnRH-agonist protocol. Pituitary suppression (PS) was not employed in the remaining 25 cases. Compared to women with PS, women without PS had significantly higher embryo implantation rates (21.6 versus 52.6%, p = 0.03). Although there was a trend favoring no PS, LBRs (25.0 versus 40.0%, p = 0.26) per cycle were short of statistical significance. LBRs per cycle (57.1 versus 31.2%, p = 0.11) and miscarriage rates (11.1 versus 16.7%, p = 0.75) were similar between CHH women who were given estrogen + progesterone and progesterone alone to support the luteal phase. In conclusion, the optimal stimulation protocol appears to be exogenous gonadotropin stimulation alone, without PS, and progesterone-only luteal phase support in CHH patients.

Serum progesterone trend after day of transfer predicts live birth in fresh IVF cycles.

PURPOSE: Our objective was to determine if a change in serum P4 from day of transfer (defined as day 19) to day 28 could predict live birth outcome in patients undergoing IVF. METHODS: This study was a retrospective analysis of fresh IVF cycles from 2010 to 2013 at a single center. Primary outcomes include raw and percent change in serum P4, live birth rate, missed abortion, and biochemical pregnancies. RESULTS: Our results showed an association between live birth rate and percent change in P4. Patients with a 10% or greater drop in serum P4 from day 19 to day 28 had a lower live birth rate, at 26 versus 63%. Interestingly, both groups had "normal" serum P4 levels on day 19, but patients with a 10% or greater drop had lower P4 levels than their counterparts. There was no association between percent P4 change and spontaneous abortion or biochemical pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to show that percent drop in serum P4 from day of transfer to day 28 is associated with decreased rates of live birth and ongoing pregnancy in fresh IVF cycles, even despite "high or normal" P4 levels on day of transfer.

Effects and safety of GnRH-a as a luteal support in women undertaking assisted reproductive technology procedures: follow-up results for pregnancy, delivery, and neonates.

PURPOSE: To investigate the effects and safety of gonadotropin releasing hormone analogue (GnRH-a) as an addition to progesterone luteal support in women who underwent in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection-embryo transfer (IVF/ICSI-ET) and achieved a clinical pregnancy. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 214 patients who underwent IVF/ICSI-ET procedures with standard long mid-luteal protocol, of which 123 received GnRH-a-free protocol and 91 received GnRH-a-added protocol. The patients' pregnancy and delivery course, and their neonates' status at birth and growth/development after birth were statistically compared. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between both study groups regarding embryo risks and maternal complications during early pregnancy. as well as fetal risks during the middle and late stages and neonate risks during birth, except that the twin pregnancies of the GnRH-a-added group had a considerably greater male/female ratio, and a significantly higher rate of premature delivery and low birth weight than those of the GnRH-a-free group. In addition, there was no significant difference in neonate risks within 2 years after birth between both cohorts. CONCLUSION: With precautions taken to control the number of implanted embryos and reduce the incidence of twinning pregnancy, the addition of GnRH-a to luteal support is relatively safe and effective.

GnRH agonist trigger does not always cause luteolysis: a case report.

This study reports an IVF patient with excessive ovarian response, who received gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) triggering. Fourteen oocytes were retrieved, and one embryo transferred 2 days later. Although no further luteal support was given, close follow-up showed consistently high oestradiol and progesterone concentrations, so no exogenous luteal support was given. A clinical pregnancy was achieved without signs or symptoms of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. This case report highlights the importance of individual follow-up post agonist trigger.

Effect of mid-luteal phase GnRH agonist on frozen-thawed embryo transfers during natural menstrual cycles: a randomised clinical pilot study.

This prospective randomised crossover study evaluated the effect of mid-luteal single-dose gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (triptoreline) on pregnancy outcomes in natural-cycle frozen embryo transfers (FETs). Ninety-eight women were randomised to receive either standard luteal support with vaginal micronised progesterone or an additional single dose of 0.1 mg triptoreline at the time of implantation. The intervention group was composed of 65 FET cycles and the control group of 62 cycles. In the intervention group, there were more positive pregnancy tests, clinical pregnancies and live births, but the differences did not reach statistical significance. The mean beta human chorionic gonadotropin (ß-hCG) concentration of singleton pregnancies was significantly lower in the intervention group compared to the control group (p = 0.048). No difference was detected in the median birth weight of the newborns.

Natural cycle frozen-thawed embryo transfer-can we improve cycle outcome?

PURPOSE: Several replacement protocols for frozen-thawed ET (FET) exist, with no advantage of one protocol over the others. In the present study, we aim to evaluate the outcome of natural cycle FET with modified luteal support. METHODS: All consecutive patients undergoing natural or artificial hormone replacement (AHR) day-2/3 FET cycles between May 2012 and June 2015 in our IVF unit were evaluated. While AHR FET cycles were consistent, those undergoing natural cycle FET received progesterone luteal support, and from June 2014, patients received two additional injections, one of recombinant hCG and the other of GnRH-agonist, on day of transfer and 4 days later, respectively (modified luteal support). RESULTS: Patients' clinical characteristics and laboratory/embryological variables were comparable between those undergoing natural vs. AHR cycles, during the earlier as compared to the later period. Moreover, while implantation, clinical, and ongoing pregnancy rates were significantly higher during the later period in patients undergoing the natural cycle FET with the modified luteal support (31, 51, and 46 %, respectively), as compared to natural (17, 26, and 20 %, respectively), or AHR FET in the late study period (15, 22, and 17 %, respectively), the natural cycle FET without the additional two injections yielded the same results, as the AHR cycles. CONCLUSIONS: We therefore suggest that in ovulatory patients undergoing FET, natural cycle FET with the modified luteal support should be the preparation protocol of choice. Further large prospective studies are needed to elucidate the aforementioned recommendation prior to its routine implementation.

The updated Cochrane review 2014 on GnRH agonist trigger: repeating the same errors.

Cochrane reviews are powerful tools, internationally recognized as the highest standard in evidence-based health care. A Cochrane analysis makes use of precise, reproducible criteria in the selection of studies for review. In the context of a previous Cochrane review (2010) on the subject of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) trigger, we questioned whether a review should be conducted during the research phase when new concepts are being developed. Recently, an updated Cochrane review was published, reaching the same general conclusion as the first one, i.e., GnRHa triggers lower the chance of pregnancy in fresh autologous IVF and intracytoplasmic injection treatment cycles. We argue that the new review repeats previous errors by compiling data from studies that were not comparable as different luteal phase protocols were used. From the clinical point of view, the luteal support used is the variable which affects the pregnancy rate and not the use of the GnRHa trigger for final oocyte maturation. Therefore, a meaningful comparison between GnRHa and HCG trigger must be confined to outcome measures that are not affected by the luteal support used. We conclude that the updated review falls short of addressing meaningful clinical and fundamental questions in the context of GnRHa trigger.