Comparison of dydrogesterone plus progesterone gel with subcutaneous aqueous progesterone plus progesterone gel for luteal phase supplementation of subsequent in vitro cycle in women after previous cycle failure.

OBJECTIVES: The luteal phase supplementation (LPS) of the in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle is crucial to increase the chance of a live birth. There is no preferred progestogen for use in the general population. The optimal progestogen regimen in the event of prior IVF failure is unknown. The aim was to compare the live birth rate for dydrogesterone plus progesterone gel versus aqueous progesterone plus progesterone gel in LPS of the IVF cycle in women with at least one previous IVF failure. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective randomized single-center study enrolled women with at least one previous IVF failure undergoing another IVF cycle. Women were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to 2 arms depending on LPS protocol: dydrogesterone (Duphaston®) + progesterone in vaginal gel (Crinone®) vs aqueous progesterone solution in subcutaneous injection (Prolutex®) + progesterone in vaginal gel (Crinone®). All women underwent fresh embryo transfer. RESULTS: The live birth rate with one prior IVF failure was 26.9% for D + PG vs 21.2% for AP + PG (p = 0.54), and with at least two IVF failures: 16% for D + PG vs 31.1% for AP + PG (p = 0.16). There were no significant differences in live birth rates between protocols, regardless of the number of prior IVF failures. CONCLUSIONS: In light of the evidence from this study that neither of the two LPS protocols is more effective in women with prior IVF failure, other factors, such as potential side effects, dosing convenience and patient preference, should be considered when choosing a treatment.

Male factor infertility in the Comprehensive Procreational Health Protection Program at the University Hospital in Cracow.

OBJECTIVES: Quality of semen is one of the most important factors contributing to couples' chance of natural conception. There are many confirmed or potential factors that influence semen analysis results. To estimate the incidence and analyze male factor infertility. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The retrospective observational study was in the Clinical Department of Gynecological Endocrinology and Gynecology, University Hospital in Krakow. The study included men from subfertile population, aged ≥ 18 years, without prior diagnosis and obvious cause of infertility, whose initial seminograms were used to characterize the population. Seminograms of men remaining in the follow-up were used to analyze the variability of sperm parameters in relation to lifestyle modification and the use of fertility supplements containing antioxidants. Control semen tests were performed at 1-3-month intervals. RESULTS: The study included 870 men. In 68.5% of men, at least one abnormal sperm parameter was found and 40.7% had complex sperm abnormalities. Averaged values of sperm parameters of men from subfertile couples were within the WHO reference ranges, except for the normal morphology, whose median was 3.8%. No significant differences in the selected sperm parameters after the implementation of conservative management were observed. The percentage of pregnancies not resulting from IVF in the follow-up population was 7.7%. CONCLUSIONS: One semen sample is representative of an individual in the diagnostics of male infertility. Expectant management and lifestyle modification should not be proposed as first-line treatment when more effective procedures are available.