Limits...
Estrogen supplementation to progesterone as luteal phase support in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Zhang XM, Lv F, Wang P, Huang XM, Liu KF, Pan Y, Dong NJ, Ji YR, She H, Hu R - Medicine (Baltimore) (2015)

Bottom Line: Meta-analyses have found conflicting results with respect to the use of progesterone or progesterone plus estrogen as luteal phase support for in vitro fertilization (IVF) protocols involving gonadotropins and/or gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs.Results of statistical analyses indicated that progesterone plus estrogen treatment was more likely to result in clinical pregnancy than progesterone alone (pooled odds ratio 1.617, 95% confidence interval 1.059-2.471; P = 0.026).No significant difference between the 2 treatment regimens was found for the other outcome measures.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: From the Reproductive Medicine Center (X-MZ, FL, PW, X-MH, K-FL, YP, N-JD, Y-RJ, HS), Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, Jiangsu; and Reproductive Medicine Center (RH), Key Laboratory of Fertility Preservation and Maintenance of Ministry of Education, Ningxia Medical University, General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University, Yinchuan, Ningxia, China.

ABSTRACT
Meta-analyses have found conflicting results with respect to the use of progesterone or progesterone plus estrogen as luteal phase support for in vitro fertilization (IVF) protocols involving gonadotropins and/or gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs. The aim of the present study was to perform an updated meta-analysis on the efficacy of progesterone versus progesterone plus estrogen as luteal phase support. We searched the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases (up to March 18, 2014). The search terms were (estrogen OR estradiol OR oestradiol) AND (progesterone) AND (IVF OR in vitro fertilization) AND (randomized OR prospective). We did not limit the form of estrogen and included subjects who contributed more than 1 cycle to a study. The primary outcome was clinical pregnancy rate. Secondary outcomes were ongoing pregnancy rate, fertilization rate, implantation rate, and miscarriage rate. A total of 11 articles were included in the present analysis, with variable numbers of studies assessing each outcome measure. Results of statistical analyses indicated that progesterone plus estrogen treatment was more likely to result in clinical pregnancy than progesterone alone (pooled odds ratio 1.617, 95% confidence interval 1.059-2.471; P = 0.026). No significant difference between the 2 treatment regimens was found for the other outcome measures. Progesterone plus estrogen for luteal phase support is associated with a higher clinical pregnancy rate than progesterone alone in women undergoing IVF, but other outcomes such as ongoing pregnancy rate, fertilization rate, implantation rate, and miscarriage rate are the same for both treatments.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Meta-analysis (A), sensitivity analysis (B), and funnel plot (C) for the odds ratio of implantation. The study by Var et al17 used a different definition of implantation rate and was excluded from the meta-analysis. CI = confidence interval.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4554142&req=5

Figure 5: Meta-analysis (A), sensitivity analysis (B), and funnel plot (C) for the odds ratio of implantation. The study by Var et al17 used a different definition of implantation rate and was excluded from the meta-analysis. CI = confidence interval.

Mentions: A total of 6 of the 11 studies reported implantation rate (Table 5).17,20,21,23,24,26 However, the study by Var et al17 used a different definition of implantation rate compared with the other studies, and therefore was excluded from meta-analysis with respect to this parameter. There was no significant difference between P + E and P with respect to implantation rate (pooled OR 1.150, 95% CI 0.779–1.699; P = 0.482) (Figure 5A). A random-effects model was used, as there was heterogeneity among the studies (Q = 11.09, P = 0.026; I2 = 63.93). All pooled ORs remained >1.0, and were nonsignificant when each study was removed in turn, indicating no obvious influence of any individual study on the pooled estimate (Figure 5B). The Egger test had an estimated intercept of 1.837, with a 1-tailed P = 0.291, indicating no significant asymmetry or bias (Figure 5C).


Estrogen supplementation to progesterone as luteal phase support in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Zhang XM, Lv F, Wang P, Huang XM, Liu KF, Pan Y, Dong NJ, Ji YR, She H, Hu R - Medicine (Baltimore) (2015)

Meta-analysis (A), sensitivity analysis (B), and funnel plot (C) for the odds ratio of implantation. The study by Var et al17 used a different definition of implantation rate and was excluded from the meta-analysis. CI = confidence interval.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4554142&req=5

Figure 5: Meta-analysis (A), sensitivity analysis (B), and funnel plot (C) for the odds ratio of implantation. The study by Var et al17 used a different definition of implantation rate and was excluded from the meta-analysis. CI = confidence interval.
Mentions: A total of 6 of the 11 studies reported implantation rate (Table 5).17,20,21,23,24,26 However, the study by Var et al17 used a different definition of implantation rate compared with the other studies, and therefore was excluded from meta-analysis with respect to this parameter. There was no significant difference between P + E and P with respect to implantation rate (pooled OR 1.150, 95% CI 0.779–1.699; P = 0.482) (Figure 5A). A random-effects model was used, as there was heterogeneity among the studies (Q = 11.09, P = 0.026; I2 = 63.93). All pooled ORs remained >1.0, and were nonsignificant when each study was removed in turn, indicating no obvious influence of any individual study on the pooled estimate (Figure 5B). The Egger test had an estimated intercept of 1.837, with a 1-tailed P = 0.291, indicating no significant asymmetry or bias (Figure 5C).

Bottom Line: Meta-analyses have found conflicting results with respect to the use of progesterone or progesterone plus estrogen as luteal phase support for in vitro fertilization (IVF) protocols involving gonadotropins and/or gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs.Results of statistical analyses indicated that progesterone plus estrogen treatment was more likely to result in clinical pregnancy than progesterone alone (pooled odds ratio 1.617, 95% confidence interval 1.059-2.471; P = 0.026).No significant difference between the 2 treatment regimens was found for the other outcome measures.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: From the Reproductive Medicine Center (X-MZ, FL, PW, X-MH, K-FL, YP, N-JD, Y-RJ, HS), Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, Jiangsu; and Reproductive Medicine Center (RH), Key Laboratory of Fertility Preservation and Maintenance of Ministry of Education, Ningxia Medical University, General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University, Yinchuan, Ningxia, China.

ABSTRACT
Meta-analyses have found conflicting results with respect to the use of progesterone or progesterone plus estrogen as luteal phase support for in vitro fertilization (IVF) protocols involving gonadotropins and/or gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs. The aim of the present study was to perform an updated meta-analysis on the efficacy of progesterone versus progesterone plus estrogen as luteal phase support. We searched the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases (up to March 18, 2014). The search terms were (estrogen OR estradiol OR oestradiol) AND (progesterone) AND (IVF OR in vitro fertilization) AND (randomized OR prospective). We did not limit the form of estrogen and included subjects who contributed more than 1 cycle to a study. The primary outcome was clinical pregnancy rate. Secondary outcomes were ongoing pregnancy rate, fertilization rate, implantation rate, and miscarriage rate. A total of 11 articles were included in the present analysis, with variable numbers of studies assessing each outcome measure. Results of statistical analyses indicated that progesterone plus estrogen treatment was more likely to result in clinical pregnancy than progesterone alone (pooled odds ratio 1.617, 95% confidence interval 1.059-2.471; P = 0.026). No significant difference between the 2 treatment regimens was found for the other outcome measures. Progesterone plus estrogen for luteal phase support is associated with a higher clinical pregnancy rate than progesterone alone in women undergoing IVF, but other outcomes such as ongoing pregnancy rate, fertilization rate, implantation rate, and miscarriage rate are the same for both treatments.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus