| Luteal phase support for assisted reproduction cycles .. cacher .... voir plus ..
Background Background Progesterone prepares the endometrium for pregnancy by stimulating proliferation in response to human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) produced by the corpus luteum in the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. In assisted reproduction techniques (ART), progesterone and/or hCG levels are low, so the luteal phase is supported with progesterone, hCG or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists to improve implantation and pregnancy rates. Objectives Objectives To determine the relative effectiveness and safety of methods of luteal phase support provided to subfertile women undergoing assisted reproduction. Search methods Search methods We searched databases including the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and trial registers up to November 2014. Further searches were undertaken in August 2015. Selection criteria Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of luteal phase support using progesterone, hCG or GnRH agonist supplementation in ART cycles. Data collection and analysis Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was live birth or ongoing pregnancy. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods. Main results Main results Ninety-four RCTs (26,198 women) were included. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias in most domains. The main limitations in the evidence were poor reporting of study methods and imprecision due to small sample sizes. 1. hCG vs placebo/no treatment (five RCTs, 746 women) Findings suggested benefit for the hCG group in live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates when data were analysed with a fixed-effect model (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.86, three RCTs, 527 women, I2 = 24%, very low-quality evidence) but there was no clear evidence of a difference using a random-effects model (OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.12). hCG may increase ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) rates (OR 4.28, 95% CI 1.91 to 9.6, one RCT, 387 women, low-quality evidence). 2. Progesterone vs placebo/no treatment (eight RCTs, 875 women) Findings suggested benefit for the progesterone group in live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates when data were analysed with a fixed-effect model (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.86, five RCTs, 642 women, I2 = 35%, very low-quality evidence) but there was no clear evidence of a difference using a random-effects model (OR 1.77, 95% CI 0.96 to 3.26). OHSS was not reported. 3. Progesterone vs hCG regimens (16 RCTs, 2162 women) hCG regimens included hCG alone and hCG with progesterone. There was no evidence of a difference between progesterone and hCG regimens in live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.38, five RCTs, 833 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). Progesterone was associated with lower OHSS rates than hCG regimens (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.71, 5 RCTs, 1293 women , I2=48%). 4. Progesterone vs progesterone with oestrogen (16 RCTs, 2577 women) There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.38, nine RCTs, 1651 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence) or OHSS (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.63, two RCTs, 461 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). 5. Progesterone vs progesterone + GnRH agonist (seven RCTs, 1708 women) Live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates were lower in the progesterone-only group than the progesterone plus GnRH agonist group (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.81, nine RCTs, 2861 women, I2 = 55%, random effects, low-quality evidence). Statistical heterogeneity was high but the direction of effect was consistent across studies. OHSS was reported in one study only; there was no evidence of a difference between the groups (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 3.01, one RCT, 300 women, very low quality evidence). 6. Progesterone regimens (45 RCTs, 13,814 women) There were nine different comparisons between progesterone regimens. Findings for live birth or ongoing pregnancy were as follows: intramuscular (IM) versus oral: OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.66 (one RCT, 40 women, very low-quality evidence); IM versus vaginal/rectal: OR 1.37, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.99 (seven RCTs, 2309 women, I2 = 71%, random effects, very low-quality evidence); vaginal/rectal versus oral: OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.69 (four RCTs, 857 women, I2 = 32%, low-quality evidence); low-dose versus high-dose vaginal: OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11 (five RCTs, 3720 women, I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence); short versus long protocol: OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.36 (five RCTs, 1205 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence); micronised versus synthetic: OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.55 (two RCTs, 470 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence); vaginal ring versus gel: OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.36 (one RCT, 1271 women, low-quality evidence); subcutaneous versus vaginal gel: OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14 (two RCTs, 1465 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence); vaginal versus rectal: OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.54 (one RCT, 147 women, very low-quality evidence). OHSS rates were reported for only two comparisons: IM versus oral, and low versus high-dose vaginal; there was no evidence of a difference between the groups. 7. Progesterone and oestrogen regimens (two RCTs, 1195 women) The included studies compared two different oestrogen protocols. There was no evidence of a difference in live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates between a short or long protocol (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.43, one RCT, 910 women, low-quality evidence) or between a low or high dose of oestrogen (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.13, one RCT, 285 women, very low-quality evidence). Neither study reported OHSS. Authors conclusions Authors conclusions hCG or progesterone given during the luteal phase may be associated with higher rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy than placebo or no treatment, but the evidence is not conclusive. The addition of GnRHa to progesterone appears to improve outcomes. hCG may increase the risk of OHSS compared to placebo. Moreover hCG, with or without progesterone, is associated with higher rates of OHSS than progesterone alone. Neither the addition of oestrogen nor the route of progesterone administration appears to be associated with an improvement in outcomes.
... lire plus sur ce sujet .... | | | 
|
| Dietary factors and luteal phase deficiency in healthy eumenorrheic women .. cacher .... voir plus ..
STUDY QUESTION Are prospectively assessed dietary factors, including overall diet quality, macronutrients and micronutrients, associated with luteal phase deficiency (LPD) in healthy reproductive aged women with regular menstrual cycles?
SUMMARY ANSWER Mediterranean Diet Score (MDS), fiber and isoflavone intake were positively associated with LPD while selenium was negatively associated with LPD after adjusting for age, percentage body fat and total energy intake. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY LPD may increase the risk of infertility and early miscarriage. Prior research has shown positive associations between LPD and low energy availability, either through high dietary restraint alone or in conjunction with high energy expenditure via exercise, but few studies with adequate sample sizes have been conducted investigating dietary factors and LPD among healthy, eumenorrheic women.
STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The BioCycle Study (2005–2007) prospectively enrolled 259 women from Western New York state, USA, and followed them for one (n = 9) or two (n = 250) menstrual cycles. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Women aged 18–44 years, with self-reported BMI between 18 and 35 kg/m2 and cycle lengths between 21 and 35 days, were included in the study. Participants completed baseline questionnaires, four 24-h dietary recalls per cycle and daily diaries capturing vigorous exercise, perceived stress and sleep; they also provided up to eight fasting serum samples during clinic visits timed to specific phases of the menstrual cycle using a fertility monitor. Cycles were included for this analysis if the peak serum luteal progesterone was >1 ng/ml and a urine or serum LH surge was detected. Associations between prospectively assessed diet quality, macronutrients and micronutrients and LPD (defined as luteal duration <10 days) were evaluated using generalized linear models adjusting for age, percentage body fat and total energy intake. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE LPD occurred in 41 (8.9%) of the 463 cycles from 246 women in the final analysis. After adjusting for age, percentage body fat and total energy intake, LPD was positively associated with MDS, adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.70 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.17, 2.48), P = 0.01. In separate macro- and micronutrient adjusted models, increased fiber and isoflavone intake showed modest positive associations with LPD: fiber (per g), aOR: 1.10 (95% CI: 0.99, 1.23), P = 0.07; and isoflavones (per 10 mg), aOR: 1.38 (95% CI: 0.99, 1.92), P = 0.06. In contrast, selenium (per 10 mcg) was inversely associated with LPD, aOR: 0.80 (95% CI: 0.65, 0.97), P = 0.03. Additional adjustments for relevant lifestyle factors including vigorous exercise, perceived stress and sleep did not appreciably alter estimates. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The number of LPD cycles was limited, and thus these findings are exploratory. We relied on participant self-report of their medical history to apply exclusion criteria; it is possible that we admitted to the study women with a gynecologic or medical disease who were unaware of their diagnosis. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Our study suggests that diet quality may be associated with LPD among healthy eumenorrheic women. As LPD may contribute to infertility and early miscarriage, further research is warranted to elucidate how dietary factors, such as MDS, may influence LPD. The inverse association we found with selenium is supported by previous research and deserves further investigation to determine whether this finding has pathophysiologic and therapeutic implications. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This work was supported by the Intramural Research Program, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health. No competing interests declared.
... lire plus sur ce sujet .... | | |
|