Literature DB >> 33499875

A 10-year follow-up on the practice of luteal phase support using worldwide web-based surveys.

Gon Shoham1, Milton Leong2, Ariel Weissman3,4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It has been demonstrated that luteal phase support (LPS) is crucial in filling the gap between the disappearance of exogenously administered hCG for ovulation triggering and the initiation of secretion of endogenous hCG from the implanting conceptus. LPS has a pivotal role of in establishing and maintaining in vitro fertilization (IVF) pregnancies. Over the last decade, a plethora of studies bringing new information on many aspects of LPS have been published. Due to lack of consent between researchers and a dearth of robust evidence-based guidelines, we wanted to make the leap from the bench to the bedside, what are the common LPS practices in fresh IVF cycles compared to current evidence and guidelines? How has expert opinion changed over 10 years in light of recent literature?
METHODS: Over a decade (2009-2019), we conducted 4 web-based surveys on a large IVF-specialist website on common LPS practices and controversies. The self-report, multiple-choice surveys quantified results by annual IVF cycles.
RESULTS: On average, 303 IVF units responded to each survey, representing, on average, 231,000 annual IVF cycles. Most respondents in 2019 initiated LPS on the day of, or the day after egg collection (48.7 % and 36.3 %, respectively). In 2018, 72 % of respondents administered LPS for 8-10 gestational weeks, while in 2019, 65 % continued LPS until 10-12 weeks. Vaginal progesterone is the predominant delivery route; its utilization rose from 64 % of cycles in 2009 to 74.1 % in 2019. Oral P use has remained negligible; a slight increase to 2.9 % in 2019 likely reflects dydrogesterone's introduction into practice. E2 and GnRH agonists are rarely used for LPS, as is hCG alone, limited by its associated risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS).
CONCLUSIONS: Our Assisted reproductive technology (ART)-community survey series gave us insights into physician views on using progesterone for LPS. Despite extensive research and numerous publications, evidence quality and recommendation levels are surprisingly low for most topics. Clinical guidelines use mostly low-quality evidence. There is no single accepted LPS protocol. Our study highlights the gaps between science and practice and the need for further LPS research, with an emphasis on treatment individualization.

Entities:  

Keywords:  IVF; Luteal phase support; Progesterone; Survey

Year:  2021        PMID: 33499875      PMCID: PMC7836509          DOI: 10.1186/s12958-021-00696-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Reprod Biol Endocrinol        ISSN: 1477-7827            Impact factor:   5.211


  54 in total

1.  Which luteal phase support is better for each IVF stimulation protocol to achieve the highest pregnancy rate? A superiority randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Salvatore Gizzo; Alessandra Andrisani; Federica Esposito; Marco Noventa; Stefania Di Gangi; Stefano Angioni; Pietro Litta; Michele Gangemi; Giovanni Battista Nardelli
Journal:  Gynecol Endocrinol       Date:  2014-09-30       Impact factor: 2.260

Review 2.  Role of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists, human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), progesterone, and estrogen in luteal phase support after hCG triggering, and when in pregnancy hormonal support can be stopped.

Authors:  Dominique de Ziegler; Paul Pirtea; Claus Yding Andersen; Jean Marc Ayoubi
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 7.329

Review 3.  Systematic review of the clinical efficacy of vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in assisted reproductive technology cycles.

Authors:  Tim Child; Saoirse A Leonard; Jennifer S Evans; Amir Lass
Journal:  Reprod Biomed Online       Date:  2018-02-22       Impact factor: 3.828

4.  Effects of natural progesterone on the morphology of the endometrium in patients with primary ovarian failure.

Authors:  C Bourgain; P Devroey; L Van Waesberghe; J Smitz; A C Van Steirteghem
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  1990-07       Impact factor: 6.918

5.  Vaginal versus intramuscular progesterone for luteal phase support in assisted reproductive techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Ahmed Mohamed Abdelhakim; Mohamed Abd-ElGawad; Reda S Hussein; Ahmed M Abbas
Journal:  Gynecol Endocrinol       Date:  2020-02-14       Impact factor: 2.260

6.  Optimization of estradiol supplementation during the luteal phase improves the pregnancy rate in women undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer cycles.

Authors:  Krzysztof Lukaszuk; Joanna Liss; Mariusz Lukaszuk; Bozena Maj
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 7.329

7.  Prospective randomized study comparing luteal phase support for ICSI patients up to the first ultrasound compared with an additional three weeks.

Authors:  Mohamed A Aboulghar; Yahia M Amin; Hesham G Al-Inany; Mona M Aboulghar; Latouna M Mourad; Gamal I Serour; Ragaa T Mansour
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2008-02-11       Impact factor: 6.918

Review 8.  Reproductive biology and IVF: ovarian stimulation and luteal phase consequences.

Authors:  Bart C J M Fauser; Paul Devroey
Journal:  Trends Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 12.015

9.  Duration of progesterone-in-oil support after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer: a randomized, controlled trial.

Authors:  Christine S Goudge; Theodore C Nagel; Mark A Damario
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2009-06-12       Impact factor: 7.329

10.  Duration of luteal support (DOLS) with progesterone pessaries to improve the success rates in assisted conception: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Rafet Gazvani; Richard Russell; Yasmin Sajjad; Zarko Alfirevic
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2012-07-26       Impact factor: 2.279

View more
  1 in total

1.  Early-Pregnancy Dydrogesterone Supplementation Mimicking Luteal-Phase Support in ART Patients Did Not Provoke Major Reproductive Disorders in Pregnant Mice and Their Progeny.

Authors:  Laura Jeschke; Clarisa Guillermina Santamaria; Nicole Meyer; Ana Claudia Zenclussen; Julia Bartley; Anne Schumacher
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2021-05-20       Impact factor: 5.923

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.