Matthew T Connell1, Jennifer M Szatkowski1, Nancy Terry2, Alan H DeCherney1, Anthony M Propst3, Micah J Hill4. 1. Program in Reproductive and Adult Endocrinology, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 2. National Institutes of Health Library, Bethesda, Maryland. 3. Texas Fertility Center, Austin, Texas. 4. Program in Reproductive and Adult Endocrinology, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. Electronic address: hillmicah@mail.nih.gov.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To summarize the available published randomized controlled trial data regarding timing of P supplementation during the luteal phase of patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART). DESIGN: A systematic review. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): Undergoing IVF. INTERVENTION(S): Different starting times of P for luteal support. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Clinical pregnancy (PR) and live birth rates. RESULT(S): Five randomized controlled trials were identified that met inclusion criteria with a total of 872 patients. A planned meta-analysis was not performed because of a high degree of clinical heterogeneity with regard to the timing, dose, and route of P. Two studies compared P initiated before oocyte retrieval versus the day of oocyte retrieval and PRs were 5%-12% higher when starting P on the day of oocyte retrieval. One study compared starting P on day 6 after retrieval versus day 3, reporting a 16% decrease in pregnancy in the day 6 group. Trials comparing P start times on the day of oocyte retrieval versus 2 or 3 days after retrieval showed no significant differences in pregnancy. CONCLUSION(S): There appears to be a window for P start time between the evening of oocyte retrieval and day 3 after oocyte retrieval. Although some studies have suggested a potential benefit in delaying vaginal P start time to 2 days after oocyte retrieval, this review could not find randomized controlled trials to adequately assess this. Further randomized clinical trials are needed to better define P start time for luteal support after ART. Published by Elsevier Inc.
OBJECTIVE: To summarize the available published randomized controlled trial data regarding timing of P supplementation during the luteal phase of patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART). DESIGN: A systematic review. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): Undergoing IVF. INTERVENTION(S): Different starting times of P for luteal support. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Clinical pregnancy (PR) and live birth rates. RESULT(S): Five randomized controlled trials were identified that met inclusion criteria with a total of 872 patients. A planned meta-analysis was not performed because of a high degree of clinical heterogeneity with regard to the timing, dose, and route of P. Two studies compared P initiated before oocyte retrieval versus the day of oocyte retrieval and PRs were 5%-12% higher when starting P on the day of oocyte retrieval. One study compared starting P on day 6 after retrieval versus day 3, reporting a 16% decrease in pregnancy in the day 6 group. Trials comparing P start times on the day of oocyte retrieval versus 2 or 3 days after retrieval showed no significant differences in pregnancy. CONCLUSION(S): There appears to be a window for P start time between the evening of oocyte retrieval and day 3 after oocyte retrieval. Although some studies have suggested a potential benefit in delaying vaginal P start time to 2 days after oocyte retrieval, this review could not find randomized controlled trials to adequately assess this. Further randomized clinical trials are needed to better define P start time for luteal support after ART. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
Progesterone; in vitro fertilization; luteal support
Authors: I Van Vaerenbergh; H M Fatemi; C Blockeel; L Van Lommel; P In't Veld; F Schuit; E M Kolibianakis; P Devroey; C Bourgain Journal: Reprod Biomed Online Date: 2010-11-13 Impact factor: 3.828
Authors: Micah J Hill; Eric D Levens; Gary Levy; Mary E Ryan; John M Csokmay; Alan H DeCherney; Brian W Whitcomb Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2012-02-24 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Kaylen M Silverberg; Thomas C Vaughn; Lisa J Hansard; Natalie Z Burger; Tamara Minter Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2011-12-19 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Robert Ochsenkühn; Andrea Arzberger; Viktoria von Schönfeldt; Julia Gallwas; Nina Rogenhofer; Alexander Crispin; Christian J Thaler; Ulrich Noss Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2012-05-24 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Karl R Hansen; Esther Eisenberg; Valerie Baker; Micah J Hill; Sixia Chen; Sara Talken; Michael P Diamond; Richard S Legro; Christos Coutifaris; Ruben Alvero; Randal D Robinson; Peter Casson; Gregory M Christman; Nanette Santoro; Heping Zhang; Robert A Wild Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Bernadett Nagy; Júlia Szekeres-Barthó; Gábor L Kovács; Endre Sulyok; Bálint Farkas; Ákos Várnagy; Viola Vértes; Kálmán Kovács; József Bódis Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2021-10-13 Impact factor: 5.923