Apostolos Kaponis1, Elpiniki Chronopoulou2, George Decavalas1. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Patras University School of Medicine, General University Hospital of Patras, Rio, 26504, Patras, Greece. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Patras University School of Medicine, General University Hospital of Patras, Rio, 26504, Patras, Greece. elpiniki.chronopoulou.12@alumni.ucl.ac.uk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Premature luteinization (PL) affects 12.3-46.7% of fresh in vitro fertilization cycles, and there is accumulating evidence confirming its negative effect on success rates. However, despite its clinical significance, PL is poorly understood and defined. This narrative review aims to provide a fresh look at the phenomenon of PL by summarizing the existing evidence and re-evaluating fundamental issues. METHODS: A thorough electronic search was conducted covering the period from 1978 until January 2018 in PubMed, Embase, and Medline databases, and references of relevant studies were cross-checked. Meeting proceedings of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine were also hand searched. RESULTS: In the curious case of PL, one should go back to the beginning and re-consider every step of the way. The pathogenesis, definition, measurement methods, clinical implications, and management strategies are discussed in detail, highlighting controversies and offering "food for thought" for future directions. CONCLUSIONS: Authors need to speak the same language when studying PL in order to facilitate comparisons. The terminology, progesterone cut-off, measurement methods and days of measurement should be standardized and globally accepted; otherwise, there can be no scientific dialog. Future research should focus on specific patient profiles that may require a tailored approach. Progesterone measurements throughout the follicular phase possibly depict the progesterone exposure better than an isolated measurement on the day of hCG. Adequately powered randomized controlled trials should confirm which the best prevention and management plan of PL is, before introducing any strategy into clinical practice.
PURPOSE: Premature luteinization (PL) affects 12.3-46.7% of fresh in vitro fertilization cycles, and there is accumulating evidence confirming its negative effect on success rates. However, despite its clinical significance, PL is poorly understood and defined. This narrative review aims to provide a fresh look at the phenomenon of PL by summarizing the existing evidence and re-evaluating fundamental issues. METHODS: A thorough electronic search was conducted covering the period from 1978 until January 2018 in PubMed, Embase, and Medline databases, and references of relevant studies were cross-checked. Meeting proceedings of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine were also hand searched. RESULTS: In the curious case of PL, one should go back to the beginning and re-consider every step of the way. The pathogenesis, definition, measurement methods, clinical implications, and management strategies are discussed in detail, highlighting controversies and offering "food for thought" for future directions. CONCLUSIONS: Authors need to speak the same language when studying PL in order to facilitate comparisons. The terminology, progesterone cut-off, measurement methods and days of measurement should be standardized and globally accepted; otherwise, there can be no scientific dialog. Future research should focus on specific patient profiles that may require a tailored approach. Progesterone measurements throughout the follicular phase possibly depict the progesterone exposure better than an isolated measurement on the day of hCG. Adequately powered randomized controlled trials should confirm which the best prevention and management plan of PL is, before introducing any strategy into clinical practice.
Entities:
Keywords:
ART; Day of hCG; IVF; Ovarian stimulation; Premature luteinization; Progesterone; Progesterone elevation
Authors: Foad Azem; Guy Tal; Joseph B Lessing; Mira Malcov; Dalit Ben-Yosef; Beni Almog; Ami Amit Journal: Gynecol Endocrinol Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 2.260
Authors: Jun Zhang; Xingyu Zhou; Yingxue Chen; Qingyan Zhang; Ying Li; Jing Zhe; Xin Chen; Shiling Chen Journal: Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao Date: 2019-10-30
Authors: Zaramasina L Clark; Meghan L Ruebel; Peter Z Schall; Kaitlin R Karl; James J Ireland; Keith E Latham Journal: Endocrinology Date: 2022-09-01 Impact factor: 5.051
Authors: Zaramasina L Clark; Kaitlin R Karl; Meghan L Ruebel; Keith E Latham; James J Ireland Journal: Biol Reprod Date: 2022-05-17 Impact factor: 4.161
Authors: Reda S Hussein; Ihab Elnashar; Ahmed F Amin; Hisham A Abou-Taleb; Ahmed M Abbas; Ahmed M Abdelmageed; Tarek Farghaly; Yulian Zhao Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2019-10-25 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Reda S Hussein; Ihab Elnashar; Ahmed F Amin; Yulian Zhao; Ahmed M Abdelmagied; Ahmed M Abbas; Ahmed A Abdelaleem; Tarek A Farghaly; Osama S Abdalmageed; Ahmed A Youssef; Esraa Badran; Hisham A Abou-Taleb Journal: Int J Fertil Steril Date: 2021-03-11
Authors: Reda S Hussein; Ihab Elnashar; Hisham A Abou-Taleb; Yulian Zhao; Ahmed M Abdelmagied; Ahmed M Abbas; Osama S Abdalmageed; Ahmed A Abdelaleem; Tarek A Farghaly; Ahmed A Youssef; Esraa Badran; Mostafa N Ibrahim; Ahmed F Amin Journal: J Hum Reprod Sci Date: 2021-03-30
Authors: Roger J Hart; Thomas D'Hooghe; Eline A F Dancet; Ramón Aurell; Bruno Lunenfeld; Raoul Orvieto; Antonio Pellicer; Nikolaos P Polyzos; Wenjing Zheng Journal: Reprod Sci Date: 2021-11-15 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Anna M Modest; Katherine M Johnson; Ashley Aluko; Ashwini Joshi; Lauren A Wise; Matthew P Fox; Michele R Hacker; Denny Sakkas Journal: Pregnancy Hypertens Date: 2021-02-13 Impact factor: 2.494