Comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of two formulations of vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in frozen embryo transfer cycles

2007 ◽  
Vol 88 ◽  
pp. S164 ◽  
Author(s):  
V.T.N. Lan ◽  
P. Tuan ◽  
L. Canh ◽  
H. Tuong ◽  
C.M. Howles
2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 147-152
Author(s):  
Aeran Seol ◽  
Yoo Jin Shim ◽  
Sung Woo Kim ◽  
Seul Ki Kim ◽  
Jung Ryeol Lee ◽  
...  

Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support (LPS) on the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) in natural frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles via a meta-analysis.Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies that met our selection criteria. Four online databases (PubMed, Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Library) were searched between January 2017 and May 2017. Studies were selected according to predefined inclusion criteria and meta-analyzed using R software version 2.14.2. The main outcome measure was CPR.Results: A total of 18 studies were reviewed and assessed for eligibility. One RCT (n=435) and three retrospective studies (n=3,033) met the selection criteria. In a meta-analysis of the selected studies, we found no significant difference in the CPR (odds ratio [OR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60–1.55) between the vaginal progesterone and control groups. An analysis of the two retrospective cohort studies that reported the live birth rate (LBR) following FET showed a significantly higher LBR in the vaginal progesterone group (OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.21–2.46). A subgroup meta-analysis of FET conducted 5 days after injection of human chorionic gonadotropin showed no significant differences between the two groups with regard to the CPR (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.90–1.55) or miscarriage rate (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.36–1.47).Conclusion: The results of this meta-analysis of the currently available literature suggest that LPS with vaginal progesterone in natural FET cycles does not improve the CPR.


Author(s):  
Nathalie F. Wang ◽  
Leif Bungum ◽  
Sven O. Skouby

Abstract The need for luteal phase support in IVF/ICSI is well established. A large effort has been made in the attempt to identify the optimal type, start, route, dosage and duration of luteal phase support for IVF/ICSI and frozen embryo transfer. These questions are further complicated by the different types of stimulation protocols and ovulation triggers used in ART. The aim of this review is to supply a comprehensive overview of the available types of luteal phase support, and the indications for their use. A review of the literature was carried out in the effort to find the optimal luteal phase support regimen with regards to pregnancy related outcomes and short and long term safety. The results demonstrate that vaginal, intramuscular, subcutaneous and rectal progesterone are equally effective as luteal phase support in IVF/ICSI. GnRH agonists and oral dydrogesterone are new and promising treatment modalities but more research is needed. hCG and estradiol are not recommended for luteal phase support. More research is needed to establish the most optimal luteal phase support in frozen embryo transfer cycles, but progesterone has been shown to improve live birth rate in some studies. Luteal phase support should be commenced between the evening of the day of oocyte retrieval, and day three after oocyte retrieval and it should be continued at least until the day of positive pregnancy test. So, in conclusion still more large and well-designed RCT’s are needed to establish the most optimal luteal phase support in each stimulation protocol, and especially in frozen embryo transfer.


Author(s):  
Marina Wanderley Paes Barbosa ◽  
Natália Paes Barbosa Valadares ◽  
Antônio César Paes Barbosa ◽  
Adelino Silva Amaral ◽  
José Rubens Iglesias ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 282-287
Author(s):  
Itai Bar Hava ◽  
Hadar Yafee ◽  
Yeela Omer ◽  
Peter Humaidan ◽  
Hadas Ganer Herman

Author(s):  
Abbas Aflatoonian ◽  
Banafsheh Mohammadi

Background: Luteal-phase support is a complex and controversial issue in the field of reproductive management. Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of low-dose subcutaneous progesterone with the vaginal progesterone for luteal-phase support in patients undergoing rozenthawed embryo transfer. Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, information related to 77 women that had frozen-thawed embryo transfer was reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups based on the route of progesterone administration used as a luteal-phase support. When the endometrial thickness reached ≥ 8 mm, in one group progesterone (Prolutex) 25 mg/ daily subcutaneous and in another group, vaginal progesterone (Cyclogest®) 400 mg twice or (Endometrin®) 100 mg thrice daily, were administrated and continued until menstruation or in case of clinical pregnancy for 8 wk after the embryo transfer when the fetal heart activity was detected by ultrasonography. Results: The patient’s characteristics were matched and there was no significant difference. The chemical and clinical pregnancy rate was higher in the vaginal progesterone group compared to the prolutex group, but statistically unnoticeable, (40% vs. 29.6%, p = 0.367) and (28% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.581), respectively. C Conclusion: The findings of this study demonstrate that the new subcutaneous progesterone can be a good alternative for intramuscular progesterone in women that dislike and do not accept vaginal formulations as luteal-phase support in assisted reproductive technology. Key words: Progesterone, Subcutaneous, Vaginal, Pregnancy.


2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (10) ◽  
pp. 101838
Author(s):  
Emre Pabuçcu ◽  
Recai Pabuçcu ◽  
Timur Gürgan ◽  
Erol Tavmergen

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
T Ho ◽  
T Pham ◽  
K Le ◽  
T Ly ◽  
H Le ◽  
...  

Abstract Study question Does the addition of oral dydrogesterone to vaginal progesterone as luteal phase support improve pregnancy outcomes during frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles compared with vaginal progesterone alone? Summary answer Luteal phase support with oral dydrogesterone added to vaginal progesterone improves live birth rates and reduces miscarriage rates compared with vaginal progesterone alone. What is known already Progesterone is an important hormone that triggers secretory transformation of the endometrium to allow implantation of the embryo. During in vitro fertilization (IVF), exogenous progesterone is administered for luteal phase support. However, there is wide inter-individual variation in absorption of progesterone via the vaginal wall. Oral dydrogesterone is effective and well tolerated when used to provide luteal phase support after fresh embryo transfer. However, there are currently no data on the effectiveness of luteal phase support with the combination of dydrogesterone with vaginal micronized progesterone compared with vaginal micronized progesterone after FET. Study design, size, duration Prospective cohort study conducted at an academic infertility center in Vietnam from 26 June 2019 to 30 March 2020. Participants/materials, setting, methods We studied 1364 women undergoing IVF with FET. The luteal support regimen was either vaginal micronized progesterone 400 mg twice daily plus oral dydrogesterone 10 mg twice daily (second part of the study) or vaginal micronized progesterone 400 mg twice daily (first 4 months of the study). The primary endpoint was live birth after the first FET of the started cycle, with miscarriage <12 weeks as one of the secondary endpoints. Main results and the role of chance The vaginal progesterone + dydrogesterone group and vaginal progesterone groups included 732 and 632 participants, respectively. Live birth rates were 46.3% versus 41.3%, respectively (rate ratio [RR] 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.99–1.27, p = 0.06; multivariate analysis RR 1.30 (95% CI 1.01–1.68), p = 0.042), with a statistically significant lower rate of miscarriage at < 12 weeks (3.4% vs 6.6%; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32–0.83; p = 0.009). Birth weight of both singletons (2971.0 ± 628.4 vs. 3118.8 ± 559.2 g; p = 0.004) and twins (2175.5 ± 494.8 vs. 2494.2 ± 584.7; p = 0.002) was significantly lower in the progesterone plus dydrogesterone versus progesterone group. Limitations, reasons for caution The study were the open-label design and the non-randomized nature of the sequential administration of study treatments. However, our systematic comparison of the two strategies was able to be performed much more rapidly than a conventional randomized controlled trial. In addition, the single ethnicity population limits external generalizability. Wider implications of the findings Oral dydrogesterone in addition to vaginal progesterone as luteal phase support in FET cycles can reduce the miscarriage rate and improve the live birth rate. Carefully planned prospective cohort studies with limited bias could be used as an alternative to randomized controlled clinical trials to inform clinical practice. Trial registration number NCT03998761


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document