ABSTRACT
Background: The purpose of the current study was to assess if luteal support with intramuscular (IM) 17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17-OHPC) (Lentogest, IBSA, Italy) improves the pregnancy outcome in comparison to natural intramuscular progesterone (Prontogest, AMSA, Italy) when administered to recipients in a frozen embryo transfer cycle. Methods: A retrospective comparative study was performed to evaluate outcomes between two different intramuscular regimens used for luteal support in frozen embryo transfer cycles in patients underwent autologous in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles (896 IVF cycles) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) who had a blastocyst transfer from February 2014 to March 2017 at the Centre for Reproductive and Genetic Health (CRGH) in London. Results: The live birth rates were significantly lower for the IM natural progesterone group when compared to 17-OHPC group (41.8% vs. 50.9%, adjusted OR of 0.63 (0.31-0.91)). The miscarriage rates were significantly lower in the 17-OHPC group compared to the IM natural progesterone group (14.5% vs. 19.2%, OR of 1.5, 95% CI of 1.13-2.11). The gestational age at birth and birth weight were similar in both groups (p=0.297 and p=0.966, respectively). Conclusion: It is known that both intramuscular and vaginal progesterone preparations are the standard of care for luteal phase support in women having frozen embryo transfer cycles. However, there is no clear scientific consensus regarding the optimal luteal support. In this study, it was revealed that live birth rates are significantly higher in women who received artificial progesterone compared to women who received natural progesterone in frozen embryo transfer cycles.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The advent of ovarian stimulation within an in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle has resulted in modifying the physiology of stimulated cycles and has helped optimize pregnancy outcomes. In this regard, the importance of progesterone (P4) elevation at time of human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) administration within an IVF cycle has been studied over several decades. Our study aimed to evaluate the association of P4 levels at time of hCG trigger with live birth rate (LBR), clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and miscarriage rate (MR) in fresh IVF or IVF-ICSI cycles. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study (n=170) involving patients attending the Centre for Reproductive and Genetic Health (CRGH) in London. The study cohort consisted of women undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation using GnRH antagonist or GnRH agonist protocols. Univariate and multiple logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate the association of clinical outcomes. Differences were considered statistically significant if p≤0.05. RESULTS: As serum progesterone increased, a decrease in LBR was observed. Following multivariate logistical analyses, LBR significantly decreased with P4 thresholds of 4.0 ng/ml (OR 0.42, 95% CI:0.17-1.0) and 4.5 ng/ml (OR 0.35, 95% CI:0.12-0.96). CONCLUSION: P4 levels are important in specific groups and the findings were statistically significant with a P4 threshold value between 4.0-4.5 ng/ml. Therefore, it seems logical to selectively measure serum P4 levels for patients who have ovarian dysfunction or an ovulatory cycles and accordingly prepare the individualized management packages for such patients.
