Advertisement

Endometrin as luteal phase support in assisted reproduction

      Objective

      To compare clinical pregnancy rate (PR) and live birth rate (LBR) between Endometrin monotherapy versus Endometrin and P in oil combination therapy in assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles.

      Design

      Retrospective analysis.

      Setting

      Large private practice.

      Patient(s)

      Patients undergoing autologous fresh IVF cycles, autologous frozen ET cycles, and fresh oocyte donor cycles were included for analysis.

      Intervention(s)

      Endometrin as a single agent for luteal support, Endometrin monotherapy or Endometrin with P in oil used at least once every 3 days for luteal support, Endometrin combination therapy.

      Main Outcome Measure(s)

      Clinical PR and LBR.

      Result(s)

      A total of 1,034 ART cycles were analyzed. Endometrin monotherapy was used in 694 of 1,034 (67%) cycles and Endometrin combination therapy was used in 340 of 1,034 (33%) cycles. In all fresh cycles, clinical PR was not significantly different (IVF autologous: Endometrin monotherapy 46.9% vs. Endometrin combination therapy 55.6%; donor oocyte endometrin monotherapy 45.2% vs. Endometrin combination therapy 52.0%). Frozen ET cycles had a significantly higher clinical PR and LBR with combination therapy group compared with monotherapy (clinical PR 47.9% vs. 23.5%; LBR 37.5% vs. 17.3%).

      Conclusion(s)

      Endometrin monotherapy was sufficient for the P component of luteal support and provided high PRs for fresh cycles in both autologous and donor oocyte cycles. Clinical PR and LBR in frozen ET cycles were significantly improved with the addition of IM P to Endometrin therapy. This may reflect the fact that lesser quality embryos are transferred in frozen ET cycles, and more intense P support is required for comparable PRs.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Fertility and Sterility
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Hubayter Z.R.
        • Muasher S.J.
        Luteal supplementation in in vitro fertilization: more questions than answers.
        Fertil Steril. 2008; 89: 749-758
        • The Practice Committee of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine
        Progesterone supplementation during the luteal phase and in early pregnancy in the treatment of infertility: an educational bulletin.
        Fertil Steril. 2008; 90: S150-S153
        • Soliman S.
        • Daya S.
        • Collins J.
        • Hughes E.G.
        The role of luteal phase support in infertility treatment: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.
        Fertil Steril. 1994; 61: 1068-1076
        • Pritts E.A.
        • Atwood A.K.
        Luteal phase support in infertility treatment: a meta-analysis of the randomized trials.
        Hum Reprod. 2002; 17: 2287-2299
        • Licciardi F.L.
        • Kwiatkowski A.
        • Noyes N.L.
        • Berkeley A.S.
        • Krey L.L.
        • Grifo J.A.
        Oral versus intramuscular progesterone for in vitro fertilization: a prospective randomized study.
        Fertil Steril. 1999; 71: 614-618
        • Friedler S.
        • Raziel A.
        • Schachter M.
        • Strassburger D.
        • Bukovsky I.
        • Ron-El R.
        Luteal support with micronized progesterone following in vitro fertilization using a down-regulation protocol with gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist: a comparative study between vaginal and oral administration.
        Hum Reprod. 1999; 14: 1944-1948
        • Miles R.A.
        • Paulson R.J.
        • Lobo R.A.
        • Press M.F.
        • Dahmoush L.
        • Sauer M.V.
        Pharmacokinetics and endometrial tissue levels of progesterone after administration by intramuscular and vaginal routes: a comparative study.
        Fertil Steril. 1994; 62: 485-490
        • Zarutskie P.W.
        • Phillips J.A.
        A meta-analysis of the route of administration of luteal phase support in assisted reproductive technology: vaginal versus intramuscular progesterone.
        Fertil Steril. 2009; 92: 163-169
        • Polyzos N.P.
        • Messini C.I.
        • Papanikolaou E.G.
        • Mauri D.
        • Tzioras S.
        • Badawy A.
        • et al.
        Vaginal progesterone gel for luteal phase support in IVF/ICSI cycles: a meta-analysis.
        Fertil Steril. 2010; 94: 2083-2087
        • Ng E.H.
        • Chan C.C.
        • Tang O.S.
        • Ho P.C.
        A randomized comparison of side effects and patient convenience between Cyclogest suppositories and Endometrin tablets used for luteal phase support in IVF treatment.
        Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2007; 131: 182-188
        • Doody K.J.
        • Schnell V.L.
        • Foulk R.A.
        • Miller C.E.
        • Kolb C.A.
        • Blake E.J.
        • et al.
        Endometrin for luteal phase support in a randomized, controlled, open-label, prospective in-vitro fertilization trial using a combination of Menopur and Bravelle for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation.
        Fertil Steril. 2009; 91: 1012-1017
        • Khan N.
        • Richter K.S.
        • Newsome T.L.
        • Blake E.J.
        • Yankov V.I.
        Matched-samples comparison of intramuscular versus vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer.
        Fertil Steril. 2009; 91: 2445-2450
        • Mitwally M.F.
        • Diamond M.P.
        • Abuzeid M.
        Vaginal micronized progesterone versus intramuscular progesterone for luteal support in women undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer.
        Fertil Steril. 2010; 93: 554-569
        • Blake E.J.
        • Norris P.M.
        • Dorfman S.F.
        • Longstreth J.
        • Yankov V.I.
        Single and multidose pharmacokinetic study of a vaginal micronized progesterone insert (Endometrin) compared with vaginal gel in healthy reproductive aged female subjects.
        Fertil Steril. 2010; 94: 1296-1301
        • Shapiro B.S.
        • Richter K.S.
        • Harris D.C.
        • Daneshmand S.T.
        A comparison of day 5 and day 6 blastocyst transfers.
        Fertil Steril. 2001; 75: 1126-1130
        • Silverberg K.M.
        • Vaughn T.C.
        • Hansard L.J.
        • Burger N.Z.
        • Minter T.
        Vaginal (Crinone 8%) gel vs. intramuscular progesterone in oil for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization: a large prospective trial.
        Fertil Steril. 2012; 97: 344-348
        • Graziano V.
        • Check J.H.
        • Dietterich C.
        • Choe J.K.
        • Yuan W.
        A comparison of luteal phase support in graduated estradiol/progesterone replacement cycles using intramuscular progesterone alone versus combination with vaginal suppositories on outcome following frozen embryo transfer.
        Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 32: 93-94
        • Glujovsky D.
        • Pesce R.
        • Fiszbajn G.
        • Sueldo C.
        • Hart R.J.
        • Ciapponi A.
        Endometrial preparation for women undergoing embryo transfers with frozen embryos or embryos derived from donor oocytes.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010; : CD006359