Oral dydrogesterone versus micronized vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support: a double-blind crossover study investigating pharmacokinetics and impact on the endometrium.

STUDY QUESTION: How do plasma progesterone (P) and dydrogesterone (D) concentrations together with endometrial histology, transcriptomic signatures, and immune cell composition differ when oral dydrogesterone (O-DYD) or micronized vaginal progesterone (MVP) is used for luteal phase support (LPS)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Although after O-DYD intake, even at steady-state, plasma D and 20αdihydrodydrogesterone (DHD) concentrations spiked in comparison to P concentrations, a similar endometrial signature was observed by histological and transcriptomic analysis of the endometrium. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: O-DYD for LPS has been proven to be noninferior compared to MVP in two phase III randomized controlled trials. Additionally, a combined individual participant data and aggregate data meta-analysis indicated that a higher pregnancy rate and live birth rate may be obtained in women receiving O-DYD versus MVP for LPS in fresh IVF/ICSI cycles. Little data are available on the pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles of O-DYD versus MVP and their potential molecular differences at the level of the reproductive organs, particularly at the endometrial level. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Thirty oocyte donors were planned to undergo two ovarian stimulation (OS) cycles with dual triggering (1.000 IU hCG + 0.2 mg triptorelin), each followed by 1 week of LPS: O-DYD or MVP, in a randomized, cross-over, double-blind, double-dummy fashion. On both the first and eighth days of LPS, serial blood samples upon first dosing were harvested for plasma D, DHD, and P concentration analyses. On Day 8 of LPS, an endometrial biopsy was collected for histologic examination, transcriptomics, and immune cell analysis. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: All oocyte donors were <35 years old, had regular menstrual cycles, no intrauterine contraceptive device, anti-Müllerian hormone within normal range and a BMI ≤29 kg/m2. OS was performed on a GnRH antagonist protocol followed by dual triggering (1.000 IU hCG + 0.2 mg triptorelin) as soon as ≥3 follicles of 20 mm were present. Following oocyte retrieval, subjects initiated LPS consisting of MVP 200 mg or O-DYD 10 mg, both three times daily. D, DHD, and P plasma levels were measured using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Histological assessment was carried out using the Noyes criteria. Endometrial RNA-sequencing was performed for individual biopsies and differential gene expression was analyzed. Endometrial single-cell suspensions were created followed by flow cytometry for immune cell typing. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 21 women completed the entire study protocol. Subjects and stimulation characteristics were found to be similar between groups. Following the first dose of O-DYD, the average observed maximal plasma concentrations (Cmax) for D and DHD were 2.9 and 77 ng/ml, respectively. The Cmax for D and DHD was reached after 1.5 and 1.6 h (=Tmax), respectively. On the eighth day of LPS, the first administration of that day gave rise to a Cmax of 3.6 and 88 ng/ml for D and DHD, respectively. For both, the observed Tmax was 1.5 h. Following the first dose of MVP, the Cmax for P was 16 ng/ml with a Tmax of 4.2 h. On the eighth day of LPS, the first administration of that day showed a Cmax for P of 21 ng/ml with a Tmax of 7.3 h. All 42 biopsies showed endometrium in the secretory phase. The mean cycle day was 23.9 (±1.2) in the O-DYD group versus 24.0 (±1.3) in the MVP group. RNA-sequencing did not reveal significantly differentially expressed genes between samples of both study groups. The average Euclidean distance between samples following O-DYD was significantly lower than following MVP (respectively 12.1 versus 18.8, Mann-Whitney P = 6.98e-14). Immune cell profiling showed a decrease of CD3 T-cell, γδ T-cell, and B-cell frequencies after MVP treatment compared to O-DYD, while the frequency of natural killer (NK) cells was significantly increased. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The main reason for caution is the small sample size, given the basic research nature of the project. The plasma concentrations are best estimates as this was not a formal PK study. Whole tissue bulk RNA-sequencing has been performed not correcting for bias caused by different tissue compositions across biopsies. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the first study comparing O-DYD/MVP, head-to-head, in a randomized design on a molecular level in IVF/ICSI. Plasma serum concentrations suggest that administration frequency is important, in addition to dose, specifically for O-DYD showing a rapid clearance. The molecular endometrial data are overall comparable and thus support the previously reported noninferior reproductive outcomes for O-DYD as compared to MVP. Further research is needed to explore the smaller intersample distance following O-DYD and the subtle changes detected in endometrial immune cells. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Not related to this work, C.Bl. has received honoraria for lectures, presentations, manuscript writing, educational events, or scientific advice from Abbott, Ferring, Organon, Cooper Surgical, Gedeon-Richter, IBSA, and Merck. H.T. has received honoraria for lectures, presentations, manuscript writing, educational events, or scientific advice from Abbott, Ferring, Cooper Surgical, Gedeon-Richter, Cook, and Goodlife. S.M. has received honoraria for lectures, presentations, educational events, or scientific advice from Abbott, Cooper Surgical, Gedeon-Richter, IBSA, and Merck and Oxolife. G.G. has received honoraria for lectures, presentations, educational events, or scientific advice from Merck, MSD, Organon, Ferring, Theramex, Gedeon-Richter, Abbott, Biosilu, ReprodWissen, Obseva, PregLem, Guerbet, Cooper, Igyxos, and OxoLife. S.V.-S. is listed as inventor on two patents (WO2019115755A1 and WO2022073973A1), which are not related to this work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EUDRACT 2018-000105-23.

In vitro fertilization outcome based on the detailed early luteal phase trajectory of hormones: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian stimulation and the use of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) for triggering oocyte maturation in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) introduces several differences in luteal phase hormone levels compared with natural cycles that may negatively impact on endometrial receptivity and pregnancy rates after fresh embryo transfer. Exogenous luteal phase support is given to overcome these issues. The suitability of a pragmatic approach to luteal phase support is not known due to a lack of data on early phase luteal hormone levels and their association with fertility outcomes during IVF with fresh embryo transfer. This study determined early luteal phase profiles of serum progesterone, 17-hydroxyprogesterone and hCG, and associations between hormone levels/hormone level profile after hCG trigger and the live birth rate in women undergoing IVF with fresh embryo transfer. METHODS: This prospective single center, cohort study was conducted in Vietnam from January 2021 to December 2022. Women aged 18-38 years with normal ovarian reserve and undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation using a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol were included. Serum hormone levels were determined before trigger, at 12, 24 and 36 h after hCG, and daily from 1 to 6 days after oocyte pick-up. Serum hormone level profiles were classified as lower or upper. The primary outcome was live birth rate based on early luteal phase hormone level profile. RESULTS: Ninety-five women were enrolled. Live birth occurred in 19/69 women (27.5%) with a lower progesterone profile and 13/22 (59.1%) with an upper progesterone profile (risk ratio [RR] 2.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28-3.60), and in 6/31 (19.4%) versus 26/60 (43.3%) with a lower versus upper serum 17-hydroxyprogesterone profile (RR 2.24; 95% CI 1.03-4.86). Nearly 20% of women had peak progesterone concentration on or before day 3 after oocyte pick-up, and this was associated with significantly lower chances of having a life birth. CONCLUSIONS: These data show the importance of proper corpus luteum function with sufficient progesterone/17-hydroxyprogesterone production for achievement of pregnancy and to maximize the chance of live birth during IVF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04693624 ( www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov ).

Luteal phase support with oral progesterone improves live birth rate in intrauterine insemination cycles using letrozole.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does luteal phase support (LPS) with oral progesterone improve the live birth rate (LBR) in patients undergoing intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles with letrozole? DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study included 1199 IUI cycles with letrozole between January 2017 and December 2021. A nearest neighbour random matching approach was employed to pair the LPS group and the control group in a 1:2 ratio. Eight variables were chosen for matching in the propensity score matching (PSM) model: age; body mass index; duration of infertility; cause(s) of infertility; antral follicle count; basal concentration of FSH; rank of IUI attempts; and leading follicle size. LBR was selected as the primary outcome. RESULTS: In total, 427 LPS cycles were matched with 772 non-LPS (control) cycles after PSM. The LBR was significantly higher in the LPS group compared with the control group (19.7% versus 14.5%; P = 0.0255). The clinical pregnancy rate (23.2% versus 17.6%; P = 0.0245) and ongoing pregnancy rate (20.6% versus 15.8%; P = 0.0437) were also significantly higher in the LPS group. The biochemical pregnancy rate, ectopic pregnancy rate and miscarriage rate were similar in the two groups (P > 0.05). The intergroup comparison revealed no significant variances in terms of gestational age, mode of delivery, ectopic pregnancy rate or abortion rate. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in birth weight or birth length between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Luteal support with oral progesterone significantly improved the LBR in IUI cycles with letrozole, but did not affect neonatal outcomes.

Luteal phase support using micronized vaginal progesterone as pessaries or capsules in artificial cycles: is there any difference?

RESEARCH QUESTION: Is there a difference between the proportion of patients with serum progesterone <8.8 ng/ml on the day of embryo transfer when micronized vaginal progesterone (MVP) for luteal phase support (LPS) is given as pessaries versus capsules? DESIGN: This retrospective, matched-cohort, single-centre study compared pessaries (Cyclogest) versus capsules (Utrogestan, Progeffik) for LPS in hormone replacement treatment-embryo transfer (HRT-ET) cycles. Patients under 50 years old with a triple-layer endometrial thickness of ≥6.5 mm underwent transfer of one or two blastocysts. Serum progesterone concentrations were measured on the day of transfer; patients with concentrations <8.8 ng/ml received a single 'rescue' dose of additional progesterone by subcutaneous injection. RESULTS: In total 2665 HRT-ET cycles were analysed; 663 (24.9%) used pessaries for LPS and 2002 (75.1%) used capsules. Mean serum progesterone concentrations with standard deviations on the day of embryo transfer were significantly higher in the group using MVP pessaries compared with those using capsules (14.5 ± 5.1 versus 13.0 ± 4.8 ng/ml; P = 0.000). The percentage of participants with suboptimal serum progesterone concentrations on the day of embryo transfer (<8.8 ng/ml) was significantly lower in the pessary group than the capsule group (10.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.9-12.6% versus 17.9%, 95% CI 16.2-19.6%; adjusted odds ratio 0.426, 95% CI 0.290-0.625; P = 0.000). No differences in pregnancy outcome were observed between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Using MVP pessaries rather than capsules for LPS resulted in significantly fewer patients having suboptimal serum progesterone concentrations on the day of embryo transfer. Consequently, almost 50% fewer patients in the pessary group needed rescue treatment.

Comparing the outcomes of in-vitro fertilization in patients receiving vaginal, subcutaneous, and intramuscular progesterone for luteal phase support: a three-armed randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal approach to luteal-phase support in infertility treatment remains a subject of debate. This study was conducted to investigate the clinical outcomes, side effects, and patient satisfaction associated with vaginal, subcutaneous, and intramuscular progesterone administration in infertile women undergoing Frozen Embryo Transfer (FET). METHODS: This three-armed randomized clinical trial assigned infertile patients eligible for FET to three progesterone treatment groups: vaginal suppositories (400 mg twice daily; n = 100), subcutaneous injections (25 mg daily; n = 102), and intramuscular injections (50 mg daily; n = 108). The primary outcomes were chemical and clinical pregnancy rates per embryo transfer cycle, with chemical pregnancy defined as beta-human chorionic gonadotropin levels > 50 IU/mL two weeks post-transfer and clinical pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound four weeks later. Exploratory outcomes included progesterone-related adverse effects and participant satisfaction, assessed via a Likert-scale survey 12 weeks post-transfer. Statistical analyses included Chi-square tests for categorical data, one-way analysis of variances, and Kruskal-Wallis tests for continuous data. RESULTS: The intramuscular progesterone group had significantly higher chemical pregnancy rates compared to the vaginal and subcutaneous groups (41.7% vs. 26.0% and 27.5%, respectively; p = 0.026). Although the clinical pregnancy rate was also higher in the intramuscular group (32.4%) compared to the vaginal (23.0%) and subcutaneous groups (21.6%), this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.148). Additionally, patient satisfaction was greater with vaginal and subcutaneous applications than with intramuscular injections (p < 0.001), likely due to a significantly higher incidence of side effects, such as pain and edema at the injection site, in the intramuscular group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We found that intramuscular progesterone resulted in higher chemical pregnancy rates than vaginal or subcutaneous routes, but this did not translate into higher clinical pregnancy rates. Despite its effectiveness, intramuscular administration was associated with more adverse effects and lower patient satisfaction. Future research should explore optimizing progesterone regimens to balance efficacy and patient comfort. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial protocol was registered on December 6, 2020, in the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT), a primary registry in the World Health Organization (WHO) Registry Network, under the registration number IRCT20141217020351N12.

Comparison between oral dydrogesterone versus micronized vaginal progesterone gel in clinical outcome within the first HRT-FET cycle: a retrospective analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy of oral dydrogesterone and micronized vaginal progesterone (MVP) gel during the first HRT-FET cycle. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study based on a total of 344 women undergoing their first HRT-FET cycles without Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone agonist (GnRH-a) pretreatment was conducted. All the cycles were allocated to two groups in the reproductive medical center at the University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital. One group (n = 193) received oral dydrogesterone 30 mg/d before embryo transfer, while the other group (n = 151) received MVP gel 180 mg/d. RESULTS: The demographics and baseline characteristics of two groups were comparable. We found no statistically significant difference in live birth rate (24.35% vs. 31.13%, P = 0.16), clinical pregnancy rate (34.72% vs. 36.42%, P = 0.74), embryo implantation rate (25.09% vs. 28.36%, P = 0.43), positive pregnancy rate (42.49% vs 38.41%, P = 0.45), miscarriage rate (9.33% vs 3.97%, P = 0.05), or ectopic pregnancy rate (0.52% vs. 0.66%, P = 0.86) between the oral dydrogesterone group and MVP gel group. In the multivariate logistic regression analysis for covariates, medication used for luteal support was not associated with live birth rate (OR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.32-1.57, P = 0.45). And the different luteal support medication did not have a significant positive association with the live birth rate in the cycles with day 2 embryo transferred (OR = 1.39, 95% CI:0.66-2.39, P = 0.39) and blastocyst transferred (OR = 1.31 95% CI:0.64-2.69, P = 0.46). CONCLUSION: 30 mg/d oral dydrogesterone and 180 mg/d MVP gel revealed similar reproductive outcomes in HRT-FET cycles in the study.

Are systemic progesterone levels in true natural cycle euploid frozen embryo transfers with luteal phase support predictive for ongoing pregnancy rates?

STUDY QUESTION: Are serum progesterone (P4) levels on the embryo transfer (ET) day predictive of ongoing pregnancy (OP) following a single euploid blastocyst transfer in a natural cycle (NC) when luteal phase support is routinely given? SUMMARY ANSWER: In single euploid frozen ETs in NC, P4 levels on ET day are not predictive for OP, when luteal phase support (LPS) is routinely added after the ET. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In an NC frozen embryo transfer (FET), P4 produced by the corpus luteum initiates secretory transformation of the endometrium and maintains pregnancy after implantation. There are ongoing controversies on the existence of a P4 cutoff level on the ET day, being predictive for the chance of OP as well as of the possible role of additional LPS after ET. Previous studies in NC FET cycles, evaluating and identifying P4 cutoff levels did not exclude embryo aneuploidy as a possible reason for failure. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This retrospective study analyzed single, euploid FET in NC, conducted in a tertiary referral IVF centre between September 2019 and June 2022, for which measurement of P4 on the day of ET and the treatment outcomes were available. Patients were only included once into the analysis. Outcome was defined as OP (ongoing clinical pregnancy with heartbeat, >12 weeks) or no-OP (not pregnant, biochemical pregnancy, early miscarriage). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Patients with an ovulatory cycle and a single euploid blastocyst in an NC FET cycle were included. Cycles were monitored by ultrasound and repeated measurement of serum LH, estradiol, and P4. LH surge was identified when a rise of 180% above the previous level occurred and P4 levels of ≥1.0 ng/ml were regarded as confirmation of ovulation. The ET was scheduled on the fifth day after P4 rise and vaginal micronized P4 was started on the day of ET after P4 measurement. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of 266 patients included, 159 (59.8%) patients had an OP. There was no significant difference between the OP- and no-OP-groups for age, BMI, and day of embryo biopsy/cryopreservation (Day 5 versus Day 6). Furthermore, P4 levels were not different between the groups of patients with OP (P4: 14.8 ng/ml (IQR: 12.0-18.5 ng/ml)) versus no-OP (P4: 16.0 ng/ml (IQR: 11.6-18.9 ng/ml)) (P = 0.483), and no differences between both groups, when P4 levels were stratified into categories of P4 levels of >5 to ≤10, >10 to ≤15, >15 to ≤20, and >20 ng/ml (P = 0.341). However, both groups were significantly different for the embryo quality (EQ), defined by inner cell mass/trophectoderm, as well as when stratified into three EQ groups (good, fair, and poor) (P = 0.001 and 0.002, respectively). Stratified EQ groups remained the only significant parameter influencing OP in the uni- and multivariate analyses (P = 0.002 and P = 0.004, respectively), including age, BMI, and P4 levels (each in categories) and embryo cryopreservation day. Receiver operator characteristic curve for the prediction of an OP revealed an AUC of 0.648 when age, BMI and EQ groups were included into the model. The inclusion of P4 measurement on ET day into the model did not add any benefit for OP prediction (AUC = 0.665). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The retrospective design is a limitation. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Monitoring serum P4 levels can be abandoned in NC FET cycles with routine LPS as they do not seem to be predictive of live birth. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No external funding was used for this study. The authors state that they do not have any conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Does luteal phase progesterone supplementation affect physical and psychosocial well-being among women undergoing modified natural cycle-FET? A sub-study of a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Are there any differences in physical and psychosocial well-being among women undergoing modified natural cycle frozen embryo transfer (mNC-FET) with or without vaginal progesterone as luteal phase support (LPS)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Women undergoing mNC-FET with vaginal progesterone supplementation were more likely to experience physical discomfort but there was no difference in psychosocial well-being between the two groups. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: mNC-FET can be carried out with or without vaginal progesterone as LPS, which has several side-effects. It is commonly known that fertility treatment can cause stress and psychosocial strain, however, most studies on this subject are conducted in fresh cycle regimes, which differ from NC-FET and results may not be comparable. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a sub-study of an ongoing RCT investigating whether progesterone supplementation has a positive effect on live birth rate in mNC-FET. The RCT is conducted at eight fertility clinics in Denmark from 2019 and is planned to end primo 2024. The sub-study is based on two questionnaires on physical and psychosocial well-being added to the RCT in August 2019. On the time of data extraction 286 women had answered both questionnaires. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women who had answered both questionnaires were included in the sub-study. Participants were equally distributed, with 143 in each of the two groups. Participants in both groups received the same questionnaires at two time-points: on cycle day 2-5 (baseline) and after blastocyst transfer. Participants in the progesterone group had administered progesterone for 7 days upon answering the second questionnaire. All items in the questionnaires were validated. Items on psychosocial well-being originate from the Copenhagen Multi-Centre Psychosocial Infertility-Fertility Problem Stress Scale (COMPI-FPSS) and from the Mental Health Inventory-5. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Women receiving progesterone experienced more vaginal itching and/or burning than women in the non-progesterone group (P < 0.001). Women in the progesterone group also experienced more self-reported vaginal yeast infection, this was, however, not significant after adjustment for multiple testing (P/adjusted P = 0.049/0.881). No differences regarding psychosocial well-being were found between the two groups. Within the progesterone group, a shift toward feeling less 'downhearted and blue' was found when comparing response distribution at baseline and after blastocyst transfer (P < 0.001). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: All items on physical symptoms were self-reported. The item on vaginal yeast infection was therefore not diagnosed by a doctor. Inclusion in the study required a few extra visits to the clinic, participants who felt more burdened by fertility treatment might have been more likely to decline participation. Women who experienced a lot of side-effects to progesterone prior to this FET cycle, might be less likely to participate. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our results are in line with previous known side-effects to progesterone. Physical side-effects of progesterone should be considered before administration. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The RCT is fully supported by Rigshospitalet's Research Foundation and a grant from Gedeon Richter. Gedeon Richter were not involved in the design of protocol nor in the conduction of the study or analysis of results. A.P., L.P., and N.I.-C.F. report grants from Gedeon Richter, Ferring and Merck with no relations to this study. N.I.-C.F. has received travel support from Ferring, Merck A/S, & Gideon Richter, and is the head of the steering committee for the Danish Fertility Guidelines made by the members of from the Danish Fertility Society. A.P. reports consulting fees from Preglem, Novo Nordisk, Ferring, Gedeon Richter, Cryos, & Merck A/S, honoraria from Gedeon Richter, Ferring, Merck A/S, Theramex, and Organon, has received travel support from Gedeon Richter (payment to institution), participated on an advisory board for Preglem and was loaned an embryoscope from Gedeon Richter to their institution. A.L.S. has stock options for Novo Nordisk B A/S. B.A. have received unrestricted grant from Gedeon Richter Nordic and Merck and honoraria for lectures from Gedeon Richter, Merck, IBSA, and Marckyrl Pharma. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The RCT is registered on ClinicalTrials. gov (NCT03795220) and in EudraCT (2018-002207-34).

A drop in serum progesterone from oocyte pick-up +3 days to +5 days in fresh blastocyst transfer, using hCG-trigger and standard luteal support, is associated with lower ongoing pregnancy rates.

STUDY QUESTION: Do early- and mid-luteal serum progesterone (P4) levels impact ongoing pregnancy rates (OPRs) in fresh blastocyst transfer cycles using standard luteal phase support (LPS)? SUMMARY ANSWER: A drop in serum P4 level from oocyte pick-up (OPU) + 3 days to OPU + 5 days (negative ΔP4) is associated with a ∼2-fold decrease in OPRs. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In fresh embryo transfer cycles, significant inter-individual variation occurs in serum P4 levels during the luteal phase, possibly due to differences in endogenous P4 production after hCG trigger and/or differences in bioavailability of exogenously administered progesterone (P) via different routes. Although exogenous P may alleviate this drop in serum P4 in fresh transfer cycles, there is a paucity of data exploring the possible impact on reproductive outcomes of a reduction in serum P4 levels. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Using a prospective cohort study design, following the initial enrollment of 558 consecutive patients, 340 fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. The inclusion criteria were: (i) female age ≤40 years, (ii) BMI ≤35 kg/m2, (iii) retrieval of ≥3 oocytes irrespective of ovarian reserve, (iv) the use of a GnRH-agonist or GnRH-antagonist protocol with recombinant hCG triggering (6500 IU), (v) standard LPS and (vi) fresh blastocyst transfer. The exclusion criteria were: (i) triggering with GnRH-agonist or GnRH-agonist plus recombinant hCG (dual trigger), (ii) circulating P4 >1.5 ng/ml on the day of trigger and (iii) cleavage stage embryo transfer. Each patient was included only once. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy (OP), as defined by pregnancy ≥12 weeks of gestational age. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: A GnRH-agonist (n = 53) or GnRH-antagonist (n = 287) protocol was used for ovarian stimulation. Vaginal progesterone gel (Crinone, 90 mg, 8%, Merck) once daily was used for LPS. Serum P4 levels were measured in all patients on five occasions: on the day of ovulation trigger, the day of OPU, OPU + 3 days, OPU + 5 days and OPU + 14 days; timing of blood sampling was standardized to be 3-5 h after the morning administration of vaginal progesterone gel. The delta P4 (ΔP4) level was calculated by subtracting the P4 level on the OPU + 3 days from the P4 level on the OPU + 5 days, resulting in either a positive or negative ΔP4. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The median P4 (min-max) on the day of triggering, day of OPU, OPU + 3 days, OPU + 5 days and OPU + 14 days were 0.83 ng/ml (0.18-1.42), 5.81 ng/ml (0.80-22.72), 80.00 ng/ml (22.91-161.05), 85.91 ng/ml (15.66-171.78) and 13.46 ng/ml (0.18-185.00), respectively. Serum P4 levels uniformly increased from the day of OPU to OPU + 3 days in all patients; however, from OPU + 3 days to OPU + 5 days, some patients had a decrease (negative ΔP4; n = 116; 34.1%), whereas others had an increase (positive ΔP4; n = 220; 64.7%), in circulating P4 levels. Although the median (min-max) P4 levels on the day of triggering, the day of OPU, and OPU + 3 days were comparable between the negative ΔP4 and positive ΔP4 groups, patients in the former group had significantly lower P4 levels on OPU + 5 days [69.67 ng/ml (15.66-150.02) versus 100.51 ng/ml (26.41-171.78); P < 0.001] and OPU + 14 days [8.28 ng/ml (0.28-157.00) versus 19.01 ng/ml (0.18-185.00), respectively; P < 0.001]. A drop in P4 level from OPU + 3 days to OPU + 5 days (negative ΔP4) was seen in approximately one-third of patients and was associated with a significantly lower OPR when compared with positive ΔP4 counterparts [33.6% versus 49.1%, odds ratio (OR); 0.53, 95% CI; 0.33-0.84; P = 0.008]; this decrease in OPR was due to lower initial pregnancy rates rather than increased overall pregnancy loss rates. For negative ΔP4 patients, the magnitude of ΔP4 was a significant predictor of OP (adjusted AUC = 0.65; 95% CI; 0.59-0.71), with an optimum threshold of -8.73 ng/ml, sensitivity and specificity were 48.7% and 79.2%, respectively. BMI (OR; 1.128, 95% CI; 1.064-1.197) was the only significant predictor of having a negative ΔP4; the higher the BMI, the higher the risk of having a negative ΔP4. Among positive ΔP4 patients, the magnitude of ΔP4 was a weak predictor of OP (AUC = 0.56, 95% CI; 0.48-0.64). Logistic regression analysis showed that blastocyst morphology (OR; 5.686, 95% CI; 1.433-22.565; P = 0.013) and ΔP4 (OR; 1.013, 95% CI; 0.1001-1.024; P = 0.031), but not the serum P4 level on OPU + 5 days, were the independent predictors of OP. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The physiological circadian pulsatile secretion of P4 during the mid-luteal phase is a limitation; however, blood sampling was standardized to reduce the impact of timing. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Two measurements (OPU + 3 days and OPU + 5 days) of serum P4 may identify those patients with a drop in P4 (approximately one-third of patients) associated with ∼2-fold lower OPRs. Rescuing these IVF cycles with additional P supplementation or adopting a blastocyst freeze-all policy should be tested in future randomized controlled trials. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): None. S.C.E. declares receipt of unrestricted research grants from Merck and lecture fees from Merck and Med.E.A. P.H. has received unrestricted research grants from MSD and Merck, as well as honoraria for lectures from MSD, Merck, Gedeon-Richter, Theramex, and IBSA. H.Y. declares receipt of honorarium for lectures from Merck, IBSA and research grants from Merck and Ferring. The remaining authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study was registered at clinical trials.gov (NCT04128436).

Oral micronized progesterone versus vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in fresh embryo transfer cycles: a multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Does oral micronized progesterone result in a non-inferior ongoing pregnancy rate compared to vaginal progesterone gel as luteal phase support (LPS) in fresh embryo transfer cycles? SUMMARY ANSWER: The ongoing pregnancy rate in the group administered oral micronized progesterone 400 mg per day was non-inferior to that in the group administered vaginal progesterone gel 90 mg per day. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: LPS is an integrated component of fresh IVF, for which an optimal treatment regimen is still lacking. The high cost and administration route of the commonly used vaginal progesterone make it less acceptable than oral micronized progesterone; however, the efficacy of oral micronized progesterone is unclear owing to concerns regarding its low bioavailability after the hepatic first pass. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This non-inferiority randomized trial was conducted in eight academic fertility centers in China from November 2018 to November 2019. The follow-up was completed in April 2021. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: A total of 1310 infertile women who underwent their first or second IVF cycles were enrolled. On the day of hCG administration, the patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups for LPS: oral micronized progesterone 400 mg/day (n = 430), oral micronized progesterone 600 mg/day (n = 440) or vaginal progesterone 90 mg/day (n = 440). LPS was started on the day of oocyte retrieval and continued till 11-12 weeks of gestation. The primary outcome was the rate of ongoing pregnancy. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In the intention-to-treat analysis, the rate of ongoing pregnancy in the oral micronized progesterone 400 mg/day group was non-inferior to that of the vaginal progesterone gel group [35.3% versus 38.0%, absolute difference (AD): -2.6%; 95% CI: -9.0% to 3.8%, P-value for non-inferiority test: 0.010]. There was insufficient evidence to support the non-inferiority in the rate of ongoing pregnancy between the oral micronized progesterone 600 mg/day group and the vaginal progesterone gel group (31.6% versus 38.0%, AD: -6.4%; 95% CI: -12.6% to -0.1%, P-value for non-inferiority test: 0.130). In addition, we did not observe a statistically significant difference in the rate of live births between the groups. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The primary outcome of our trial was the ongoing pregnancy rate; however, the live birth rate may be of greater clinical interest. Although the results did not show a difference in the rate of live births, they should be confirmed by further trials with larger sample sizes. In addition, in this study, final oocyte maturation was triggered by hCG, and the findings may not be extrapolatable to cycles with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist triggers. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Oral micronized progesterone 400 mg/day may be an alternative to vaginal progesterone gel in patients reluctant to accept the vaginal route of administration. However, whether a higher dose of oral micronized progesterone is associated with a poorer pregnancy rate or a higher rate of preterm delivery warrants further investigation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This research was supported by a grant from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (82071718). None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This trial was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (http://www.chictr.org.cn/) with the number ChiCTR1800015958. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: May 2018. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: November 2018.

The true natural cycle frozen embryo transfer - impact of patient and follicular phase characteristics on serum progesterone levels one day prior to warmed blastocyst transfer.

BACKGROUND: In a true-natural cycle (t-NC), optimal progesterone (P4) output from the corpus luteum is crucial for establishing and maintaining an intrauterine pregnancy. In a previous retrospective study, low P4 levels (< 10 ng/mL) measured one day before warmed blastocyst transfer in t-NC were associated with significantly lower live-birth rates. In the current study, we aim to examine the relationship between patient, follicular-phase endocrine and ultrasonographic characteristics, and serum P4 levels one day prior to warmed blastocyst transfer in t-NC. METHOD: 178 consecutive women undergoing their first t-NC frozen embryo transfer (FET) between July 2017-August 2022 were included. Following serial ultrasonographic and endocrine monitoring, ovulation was documented by follicular collapse. Luteinized unruptured follicle (LUF) was diagnosed when there was no follicular collapse despite luteinizing-hormone surge (> 17 IU/L) and increased serum P4 (> 1.5 ng/mL). FET was scheduled on follicular collapse + 5 or LH surge + 6 in LUF cycles. Primary outcome was serum P4 on FET - 1. RESULTS: Among the 178 patients, 86% (n = 153) experienced follicular collapse, while 14% (n = 25) had LUF. On FET-1, the median serum luteal P4 level was 12.9 ng/mL (IQR: 9.3-17.2), ranging from 1.8 to 34.4 ng/mL. Linear stepwise regression revealed a negative correlation between body mass index (BMI) and LUF, and a positive correlation between follicular phase peak-E2 and peak-P4 levels with P4 levels on FET-1. The ROC curve analyses to predict < 9.3 ng/mL (< 25th percentile) P4 levels on FET-1 day showed AUC of 0.70 (95%CI 0.61-0.79) for BMI (cut-off: 23.85 kg/m2), 0.71 (95%CI 0.61-0.80) for follicular phase peak-P4 levels (cut-off: 0.87 ng/mL), and 0.68 (95%CI 0.59-0.77) for follicular phase peak-E2 levels (cut-off: 290.5 pg/mL). Combining all four independent parameters yielded an AUC of 0.80 (95%CI 0.72-0.88). The adjusted-odds ratio for having < 9.3 ng/mL P4 levels on FET-1 day for patients with LUF compared to those with follicle collapse was 4.97 (95%CI 1.66-14.94). CONCLUSION: The BMI, LUF, peak-E2, and peak-P4 levels are independent predictors of low serum P4 levels on FET-1 (< 25th percentile; <9.3 ng/ml) in t-NC FET cycles. Recognition of risk factors for low serum P4 on FET-1 may permit a personalized approach for LPS in t-NC FET to maximize reproductive outcomes.

Preparation of the endometrium for frozen embryo transfer: an update on clinical practices.

Over the past decade, the application of frozen-thawed embryo transfer treatment cycles has increased substantially. Hormone replacement therapy and the natural cycle are two popular methods for preparing the endometrium. Hormone replacement therapy is now used at the discretion of the doctors because it is easy to coordinate the timing of embryo thawing and transfer with the schedules of the in-vitro fertilization lab, the treating doctors, and the patient. However, current results suggest that establishing a pregnancy in the absence of a corpus luteum as a result of anovulation may pose significant maternal and fetal risks. Therefore, a 'back to nature' approach that advocates an expanded use of natural cycle FET in ovulatory women has been suggested. Currently, there is increasing interest in how the method of endometrial preparation may influence frozen embryo transfer outcomes specifically, especially when it comes to details such as different types of ovulation monitoring and different luteal support in natural cycles, and the ideal exogenous hormone administration route as well as the endocrine monitoring in hormone replacement cycles. In addition to improving implantation rates and ensuring the safety of the fetus, addressing these points will allow for individualized endometrial preparation, also as few cycles as possible would be canceled.

Luteal phase support with progesterone does not improve pregnancy rates in patients undergoing ovarian stimulation with letrozole.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does luteal phase support with vaginal progesterone improve clinical pregnancy rates in patients undergoing ovarian stimulation with letrozole? DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing ovarian stimulation with letrozole paired with intrauterine insemination (IUI) or timed intercourse (TIC) from January 2018 to October 2021. The primary outcome of clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) was calculated for cycles with and without luteal phase progesterone support. Univariate logistic regressions were done to evaluate predictor variables for CPR. Clinically important covariates including age, body mass index, anti-Müllerian hormone concentration, diagnosis of ovulatory dysfunction and multifollicular development were included in a multivariate analysis evaluating the relationship between luteal progesterone use and odds of clinical pregnancy. Secondary outcomes including spontaneous abortion, biochemical pregnancy and ectopic pregnancy were calculated. Live birth rates were calculated for cycles in a secondary analysis. RESULTS: A total of 492 letrozole ovarian stimulation cycles in 273 patients were included. Of these cycles, 387 (78.7%) used vaginal progesterone for luteal support and 105 (21.3%) did not. The unadjusted CPR per cycle was 11.6% (45/387) with progesterone and 13.3% (14/105) without progesterone (P = 0.645). After adjusting for significant covariates including age, BMI, diagnosis of ovulatory dysfunction and multifollicular development, the odds for clinical pregnancy were not significantly improved in cycles with exogenous progesterone (odds ratio [OR] 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48-2.75, P = 0.762). A follow-up analysis demonstrated that live birth rate was 10.7% (41/384) with and 12.5% (13/104) without luteal progesterone, respectively (P = 0.599). CONCLUSIONS: Luteal support with vaginal progesterone does not significantly improve CPR in ovarian stimulation cycles using letrozole.

Comparison of the efficacy of subcutaneous versus vaginal progesterone using a rescue protocol in vitrified blastocyst transfer cycles.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does administration of subcutaneous (s.c.) progesterone support ongoing pregnancy rates (OPR) similar to vaginal progesterone using a rescue protocol in hormone replacement therapy frozen embryo transfer cycles? DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. Two sequential cohorts - vaginal progesterone gel (December 2019-October 2021; n=474) and s.c. progesterone (November 2021-November 2022; n=249) -were compared. Following oestrogen priming, s.c. progesterone 25 mg twice daily (b.d.) or vaginal progesterone gel 90 mg b.d. was administered. Serum progesterone was measured 1 day prior to warmed blastocyst transfer (i.e. day 5 of progesterone administration). In patients with serum progesterone concentrations <8.75 ng/ml, additional s.c. progesterone (rescue protocol; 25 mg) was provided. RESULTS: In the vaginal progesterone gel group, 15.8% of patients had serum progesterone <8.75 ng/ml and received the rescue protocol, whereas no patients in the s.c. progesterone group received the rescue protocol. OPR, along with positive pregnancy and clinical pregnancy rates, were comparable between the s.c. progesterone group without the rescue protocol and the vaginal progesterone gel group with the rescue protocol. After the rescue protocol, the route of progesterone administration was not a significant predictor of ongoing pregnancy. The impact of different serum progesterone concentrations on reproductive outcomes was evaluated by percentile (<10th, 10-49th, 50-90th and >90th percentiles), taking the >90th percentile as the reference subgroup. In both the vaginal progesterone gel group and the s.c. progesterone group, all serum progesterone percentile subgroups had similar OPR. CONCLUSIONS: Subcutaneous progesterone 25 mg b.d. secures serum progesterone >8.75 ng/ml, whereas additional exogenous progesterone (rescue protocol) was needed in 15.8% of patients who received vaginal progesterone. The s.c. and vaginal progesterone routes, with the rescue protocol if needed, yield comparable OPR.

Individualized luteal phase support using additional oral dydrogesterone in artificially prepared frozen embryo transfer cycles: is it beneficial?

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does additional supplementation with oral dydrogesterone improve reproductive outcomes in patients with low serum progesterone concentrations on the day of frozen embryo transfer (FET) after artificial (HRT) endometrial preparation? DESIGN: Retrospective, single-centre cohort study including 694 unique patients performing single blastocyst transfer in an HRT cycle. For luteal phase support, intravaginal micronized vaginal progesterone (MVP, 400 mg twice daily) was administered. Serum progesterone concentrations were assessed prior to FET and outco-mes were compared among patients with normal serum progesterone (≥8.8 ng/ml) continuing the routine protocol and patients with low serum progesterone (<8.8 ng/ml) who received additional oral dydrogesterone supplementation (10 mg three times daily) from the day after FET onwards. Primary outcome was live birth rate (LBR), with a multivariate regression model correcting for relevant confounders. RESULTS: Normal serum progesterone concentrations were observed in 547/694 (78.8%) of patients who continued only MVP as planned, whereas low (<8.8 ng/ml) serum progesterone concentrations were detected in 147/694 (21.2%) patients who received additional oral dydrogesterone supplementation on top of MVP from the day after FET onwards. LBR was comparable between both groups: 37.8% for MVP-only versus 38.8% for MVP+OD (P = 0.84). The multivariate logistic regression model indicated that LBR was not significantly associated with the investigated approaches (adjusted odds ratio 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.69-1.47, P = 0.97). CONCLUSIONS: The current findings suggest that additional oral dydrogesterone supplementation in patients with low serum progesterone concentrations at the moment of transfer could have the potential to rescue reproductive outcomes in HRT-FET cycles. This field of research, however, remains hampered by the absence of randomized controlled trials.

Evaluation of allylestrenol for clinical pregnancies in patients treated with assisted reproductive techniques: a retrospective, propensity score matched, observational study.

BACKGROUND: Allylestrenol is an oral progestogen being increasingly used for luteal phase support in assisted reproductive techniques. However, evidence of the clinical efficacy of allylestrenol in luteal phase support is lacking. Dydrogesterone is a representative drug used for luteal phase support, the efficacy of which has been clinically confirmed. As such, we aimed to compare the effects of allylestrenol with the standard dydrogesterone on clinical pregnancy rates and pregnancy outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective study included 3375 assisted reproductive technique cycles using either allylestrenol or dydrogesterone between January 2015 and March 2020. Patients using either allylestrenol or dydrogesterone were matched in a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores. The primary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate and pregnancy outcomes. RESULTS: No significant difference was found in the clinical pregnancy rate (53.5% vs. 53.2%, P = 0.928) and pregnancy outcomes (all P > 0.05) between allylestrenol and dydrogesterone. Compared with dydrogesterone, the use of allylestrenol significantly reduced the rate of biochemical pregnancies (6.4% vs. 11.8%, P < 0.001) and multiple gestation rate (16.8% vs. 26.3%, P = 0.001). Moreover, endometrial thickness, morphology, and blood flow were significantly improved by allylestrenol treatment (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Allylestrenol exhibited similar effects on clinical pregnancy rates and pregnancy outcomes as dydrogesterone. Moreover, allylestrenol can significantly reduce the biochemical pregnancy rate and improve the endometrial receptivity.

The optimal route of progesterone administration for luteal phase support in a frozen embryo transfer: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the optimal route of progesterone administration for luteal phase support in a frozen embryo transfer. DESIGN: Systematic review. PATIENTS: Women undergoing frozen embryo transfer (FET). INTERVENTIONS: We conducted an extensive database search of Medline (PubMed), Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Trials Register using relevant keywords and their combinations to find randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the routes (i.e., oral, vaginal, intramuscular) of progesterone administration for luteal phase support (LPS) in artificial FET. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical pregnancy, live birth, miscarriage. RESULTS: Four RCTs with 3245 participants undergoing artificial endometrial preparation (EP) cycles during FET were found to be eligible. Four trials compared vaginal progesterone with intramuscular progesterone and two trials compared vaginal progesterone with oral progesterone. One study favored of vaginal versus oral progesterone for clinical pregnancy rates (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.22-0.92) and other study favored intramuscular versus vaginal progesterone for clinical pregnancy rates (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.21-1.76) and live birth rates (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.28-2.05). Tabulation of overall evidence strength assessment showed low-quality evidence on the basis that for each outcome-comparison pair, there were deficiencies in either directness of outcome measurement or study quality. CONCLUSION: There was little consensus and evidence was heterogeneous on the optimal route of administration of progesterone for LPS during FET in artificial EP cycles. This warrants more trials, indirect comparisons, and network meta-analyses. PROPERO NO: CRD42021251017.

The association between the type of progesterone supplementation and miscarriage risk in women who have had a positive pregnancy test following embryo transfer: a retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify if switching from intramuscular (IM) to vaginal progesterone compared to staying on IM progesterone after a positive pregnancy test following embryo transfer (ET) is associated with miscarriage risk. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed in a private university-affiliated fertility clinic and included women aged 18-50 years with a positive pregnancy test following ET. The two groups studied were: women who stayed on IM progesterone following a positive pregnancy test and those who switched to vaginal progesterone after a positive test. The main outcome measured was risk of miscarriage < 24 weeks gestation as a proportion of non-biochemical pregnancies. RESULTS: 1988 women were included in the analysis. Among the baseline characteristics, the presence of prior miscarriages as well as prior failed ETs, and frozen cycles (vs fresh) as type of transfer were associated with IM progesterone use (p values ≤ 0.01). As per miscarriage risk < 24 weeks, 22.4% (274/1221) of patients in the IM progesterone group experienced a miscarriage compared with 20.7% (159/767) in the vaginal progesterone group (OR 0.90; 95% CI 0.73-1.13). A multivariable logistic regression model revealed an adjusted OR (aOR) of 0.97 (95% CI 0.77-1.22). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that switching from IM to vaginal progesterone after a positive pregnancy test following an ET is not associated with miscarriage risk. Considering that IM progesterone imposes substantial discomfort, this study offers reassurance and some flexibility in treatment protocols. Further prospective studies are necessary to corroborate the results of this study.

Comparison of pregnancy rates in antagonist cycles after luteal support with GnRH-agonist versus progesterone: prospective randomized study.

PURPOSE: To compare pregnancy rates in GnRH-antagonist cycles triggered with hCG after luteal phase support with intranasal GnRH-agonist as sole luteal phase support versus standard vaginal progesterone preparation. METHODS: Prospective randomized controlled study of patients who underwent antagonist-based IVF cycles triggered with hCG at university-affiliated tertiary medical center between 2020 and 2022. Patients meeting the inclusion criteria were randomly assigned to either intranasal GnRH-agonist or vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support. Pregnancy rates were the main outcome compared between the two study groups. RESULTS: A total of 150 patients underwent 164 cycles, 127 cycles of which were included in the study cohort. Of them, 64 (50.4%) and 63 (49.6%) cycles were treated with GnRH-agonist or progesterone, respectively, as sole luteal phase support. A significantly higher pregnancy rate was demonstrated in the GnRH-agonist group compared with the progesterone group. After adjustment of several potential confounders such as age, body mass index, past obstetric history, number of IVF cycles, oocyte retrieved and embryos transferred, GnRH-agonist was still associated with a higher pregnancy rate (odds ratio 3.4, 95% confidence interval 1.4-8.3). Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome rates were similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective study suggests that nasal GnRH-agonist for luteal phase support is associated with higher pregnancy rates compared with standard progesterone support in an antagonist-based protocol triggered with hCG, while maintaining a similar safety profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05484193. Date of registration: August 02 2022. The trial was retrospectively registered.

Clinical factors associated with low serum progesterone levels on the day of frozen blastocyst transfer in hormonal replacement therapy cycles.

STUDY QUESTION: Which factors are associated with low serum progesterone (P) levels on the day of frozen embryo transfer (FET), in HRT cycles? SUMMARY ANSWER: BMI, parity and non-European geographic origin are factors associated with low serum P levels on the day of FET in HRT cycles. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The detrimental impact of low serum P concentrations on HRT-FET outcomes is commonly recognized. However, the factors accounting for P level disparities among patients receiving the same luteal phase support treatment remain to be elucidated, to help clinicians predicting which subgroups of patients would benefit from a tailored P supplementation. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Observational cohort study with 915 patients undergoing HRT-FET at a tertiary care university hospital, between January 2019 and March 2020. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Patients undergoing single autologous blastocyst FET under HRT using exogenous estradiol and vaginal micronized progesterone for endometrial preparation. Women were only included once during the study period. The serum progesterone level was measured in the morning of the FET, in a single laboratory. Independent factors associated with low serum P levels (defined as ≤9.8 ng/ml, according to a previous published study) were analyzed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Two hundred and twenty-six patients (24.7%) had a low serum P level, on the day of the FET. Patients with a serum P level ≤9.8 ng/ml had a lower live birth rate (26.1% vs 33.2%, P = 0.045) and a higher rate of early miscarriage (35.2% vs 21.5%, P = 0.008). Univariate analysis showed that BMI (P < 0.001), parity (P = 0.001), non-European geographic origin (P = 0.001), the duration of infertility (P = 0.018) and the use of oral estradiol for endometrial preparation (P = 0.009) were significantly associated with low serum P levels. Moreover, the proportion of active smokers was significantly lower in the 'low P concentrations' group (P = 0.002). After multivariate analysis, BMI (odds ratio (OR) 1.06 95% CI (1.02-1.11), P = 0.002), parity (OR 1.32 95% CI (1.04-1.66), P = 0.022), non-European geographic origin (OR 1.70 95% CI (1.21-2.39), P = 0.002) and active smoking (OR 0.43 95% CI (0.22-0.87), P = 0.018) remained independent factors associated with serum P levels ≤9.8 ng/ml. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The main limitation of this study is its observational design, leading to a risk of selection and confusion bias that cannot be ruled out, although a multivariable analysis was performed to minimize this. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Extrapolation of our results to other laboratories, or other routes and/or doses of administering progesterone also needs to be validated. There is urgent need for future research on clinical factors affecting P concentrations and the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms, to help clinicians in predicting which subgroups of patients would benefit from individualized luteal phase support. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No funding/no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.