The exogenous progesterone-free luteal phase: two pilot randomized controlled trials in IVF patients.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Is the reproductive outcome similar after gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) trigger followed by luteal human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) boluses compared with HCG trigger and a standard luteal phase support (LPS)? DESIGN: Two open-label pilot randomized controlled trials (RCT) with 250 patients from 2014 to 2019, with a primary outcome of ongoing pregnancy per embryo transfer. Patients with ≤13 follicles on the trigger day were randomized (RCT 1) to: Group A (n = 65): GnRHa trigger followed by a bolus of 1500 IU HCG s.c. on the oocyte retrieval day (ORD) and 1000 IU HCG s.c. 4 days later, and no vaginal LPS; or Group B (n = 65): 6500 IU HCG trigger, followed by a standard vaginal progesterone LPS. Patients with 14-25 follicles on the trigger day were randomized (RCT 2) to Group C (n = 60): GnRHa trigger followed by 1000 IU HCG s.c. on ORD and 500 IU HCG s.c. 4 days later, and no vaginal LPS; or Group D (n = 60): 6500 IU HCG trigger and a standard vaginal LPS. RESULTS: In RCT 1, the ongoing pregnancy rate was 44% (22/50) in the GnRHa group versus 46% (25/54) in the HCG trigger group (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.62-1.45). No ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) was seen in Groups A or B. In RCT 2, the ongoing pregnancy rate was 51% (25/49) in the GnRHa group versus 60% (31/52) in the HCG trigger group (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.60-1.22). The OHSS rates were 3.3% and 6.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although a larger-scale study is needed before standard clinical implementation, the present study supports that the exogenous progesterone-free LPS is efficacious, simple and patient-friendly.

Psychological aspects of male fertility treatment.

AIMS: To explore and to identify the possible need for psychological communicative support in men undergoing fertility treatment. BACKGROUND: Male infertility affects many aspects of a man's life and may cause a life crisis. Although infertility treatment is now commonplace in men, they often feel remote and disconnected from the treatment process. DESIGN: A descriptive survey. METHODS: A questionnaire with structured and open-ended questions was completed by 210 Danish men undergoing fertility treatment. The questionnaire covered three issues: individual perception of male infertility, gender equality issues, and communication with health professionals in the clinic. Data were collected during 2008. FINDINGS: Of the participants, 28% believed that their reduced sperm quality affected their perception of masculinity. 46% stated that equal involvement between partners was a very important element of the treatment; however, 63% said that the health professionals communicated primarily with their female partner. Finally, 62% found that there was a need for a deeper dialogue with the nurses concerning male infertility and 72% lacked information about the psychological consequences of male infertility. In general, participants wanted a more open and balanced dialogue about infertility treatment and the role of the male partner during this process. CONCLUSION: Infertile men want health professionals to view them on equal terms with their partner. When treating the infertile man, there is a further need to develop more inclusive communication skills.