Luteal phase support for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection fresh cycles: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Abstract Background Various luteal phase supports (LPSs) have been proven to increase the pregnancy rate in fresh cycles of in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection; however, there is still significant debate regarding the optimal use of LPS. Methods A systematic review with the us...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Hanglin Wu, Songying Zhang, Xiaona Lin, Shasha Wang, Ping Zhou
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2021-07-01
Series:Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-021-00782-5
id doaj-34ff2053f9b84adc838443d46c4e926c
record_format Article
spelling doaj-34ff2053f9b84adc838443d46c4e926c2021-07-11T11:47:16ZengBMCReproductive Biology and Endocrinology1477-78272021-07-0119111110.1186/s12958-021-00782-5Luteal phase support for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection fresh cycles: a systematic review and network meta-analysisHanglin Wu0Songying Zhang1Xiaona Lin2Shasha Wang3Ping Zhou4Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hangzhou Women’s HospitalAssisted Reproduction Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of MedicineAssisted Reproduction Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of MedicineAssisted Reproduction Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of MedicineAssisted Reproduction Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of MedicineAbstract Background Various luteal phase supports (LPSs) have been proven to increase the pregnancy rate in fresh cycles of in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection; however, there is still significant debate regarding the optimal use of LPS. Methods A systematic review with the use of a network meta-analysis was performed via electronic searching of Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar (up to January 2021) to compare the effectiveness and safety of various LPSs, as well as to evaluate the effects of different initiations of LPSs on pregnancy outcomes. The primary outcomes included live birth and ongoing pregnancy, with the results presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results Eighty-nine randomized controlled trials with 29,625 women comparing 14 interventions or placebo/no LPS treatments were included in the meta-analyses. No significant differences were found in terms of the pregnancy outcomes when LPS was started within 48 h after oocyte retrieval versus a delayed initiation between 48 h and 96 h after oocyte retrieval. The addition of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists to progesterone vaginal pessaries showed a significant benefit in terms of live birth (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.78). Only human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) was found to be more efficacious than the placebo/no LPS treatment in terms of live birth (OR 15.43, 95% CI 2.03 to 117.12, low evidence). Any active LPSs (except for rectal or subcutaneous progesterone) was significantly more efficacious than the placebo/no LPS treatment in terms of ongoing pregnancy, with ORs ranging between 1.77 (95% CI 1.08 to 2.90) for the vaginal progesterone pessary and 2.14 (1.23 to 3.70) for the intramuscular progesterone treatment. Among the comparisons of efficacy and tolerability between the active treatments, the differences were small and very uncertain. Conclusion Delays in progesterone supplementation until 96 h after oocyte retrieval does not affect pregnancy outcomes. The safety of GnRH agonists during the luteal phase needs to be evaluated in future studies before the applications of these agonists in clinical practice. With comparable efficacy and acceptability, there may be several viable clinical options for LPS.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-021-00782-5In vitro fertilizationIntracytoplasmic sperm injectionLuteal phase supportsPregnancy rateNetwork meta-analysis
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Hanglin Wu
Songying Zhang
Xiaona Lin
Shasha Wang
Ping Zhou
spellingShingle Hanglin Wu
Songying Zhang
Xiaona Lin
Shasha Wang
Ping Zhou
Luteal phase support for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection fresh cycles: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology
In vitro fertilization
Intracytoplasmic sperm injection
Luteal phase supports
Pregnancy rate
Network meta-analysis
author_facet Hanglin Wu
Songying Zhang
Xiaona Lin
Shasha Wang
Ping Zhou
author_sort Hanglin Wu
title Luteal phase support for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection fresh cycles: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_short Luteal phase support for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection fresh cycles: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_full Luteal phase support for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection fresh cycles: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_fullStr Luteal phase support for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection fresh cycles: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Luteal phase support for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection fresh cycles: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_sort luteal phase support for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection fresh cycles: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
publisher BMC
series Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology
issn 1477-7827
publishDate 2021-07-01
description Abstract Background Various luteal phase supports (LPSs) have been proven to increase the pregnancy rate in fresh cycles of in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection; however, there is still significant debate regarding the optimal use of LPS. Methods A systematic review with the use of a network meta-analysis was performed via electronic searching of Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar (up to January 2021) to compare the effectiveness and safety of various LPSs, as well as to evaluate the effects of different initiations of LPSs on pregnancy outcomes. The primary outcomes included live birth and ongoing pregnancy, with the results presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results Eighty-nine randomized controlled trials with 29,625 women comparing 14 interventions or placebo/no LPS treatments were included in the meta-analyses. No significant differences were found in terms of the pregnancy outcomes when LPS was started within 48 h after oocyte retrieval versus a delayed initiation between 48 h and 96 h after oocyte retrieval. The addition of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists to progesterone vaginal pessaries showed a significant benefit in terms of live birth (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.78). Only human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) was found to be more efficacious than the placebo/no LPS treatment in terms of live birth (OR 15.43, 95% CI 2.03 to 117.12, low evidence). Any active LPSs (except for rectal or subcutaneous progesterone) was significantly more efficacious than the placebo/no LPS treatment in terms of ongoing pregnancy, with ORs ranging between 1.77 (95% CI 1.08 to 2.90) for the vaginal progesterone pessary and 2.14 (1.23 to 3.70) for the intramuscular progesterone treatment. Among the comparisons of efficacy and tolerability between the active treatments, the differences were small and very uncertain. Conclusion Delays in progesterone supplementation until 96 h after oocyte retrieval does not affect pregnancy outcomes. The safety of GnRH agonists during the luteal phase needs to be evaluated in future studies before the applications of these agonists in clinical practice. With comparable efficacy and acceptability, there may be several viable clinical options for LPS.
topic In vitro fertilization
Intracytoplasmic sperm injection
Luteal phase supports
Pregnancy rate
Network meta-analysis
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-021-00782-5
work_keys_str_mv AT hanglinwu lutealphasesupportforinvitrofertilizationintracytoplasmicsperminjectionfreshcyclesasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT songyingzhang lutealphasesupportforinvitrofertilizationintracytoplasmicsperminjectionfreshcyclesasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT xiaonalin lutealphasesupportforinvitrofertilizationintracytoplasmicsperminjectionfreshcyclesasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT shashawang lutealphasesupportforinvitrofertilizationintracytoplasmicsperminjectionfreshcyclesasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT pingzhou lutealphasesupportforinvitrofertilizationintracytoplasmicsperminjectionfreshcyclesasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
_version_ 1721308658214633472