Table 36Methods for luteal support - adjuncts to progesterone

StudyInterventionsNEfficacy
Clinical Pregnancy Ongoing Pregnancy/Live Birth
Rel EffLower 95% CIUpper 95% CIRel EffLower 95% CIUpper 95% CI
Progesterone + hCG
Fujimoto et al., 2002267Reference IM progesterone 51
IM progesterone + hCG days 1, 4, 7 after transfer 63 2.311.065.03- - -
Patients who did not conceive during 1st cycle, low luteal E2
Ludwig et al., 2001260Reference Progesterone only 191
hCG only 77 1.01 0.69 1.47 0.80 0.43 1.50
Progesterone + hCG1450.790.471.331.010.631.60
Progesterone + estrogen
Unfer et al., 2004268Reference Progesterone + placebo 98
Progesterone + phytoestrogens1151.931.342.771.911.232.96
Lukaszuk et al., 2005269Reference P only 50
P + 2 mg E2 47 1.42 0.89 2.26 - - -
P + 6 mg E2 69 1.611.062.45- - -
Multiple pregnancies significantly higher with E2 regimens (0% P only, 30.4% 2 mg E2, 25.6% 6 mg E2)
Tay and Lenton, 2003270Reference Progesterone only 35
Progesterone + E2280.760.272.15---
Fatemi et al., 2006271Reference 600 mg progesterone 1 day after retrieval 100
600 mg progesterone + 4 mg E2 valerate 101 - - - 1.14 0.73 1.79
GnRH antagonist + rFSHEarly pregnancy loss 0.98 (0.43, 2.26)
Progesterone + estrogen + GnRH agonist
Tesarik et al., 2006272Reference P + E2 + Placebo 300
P + E2 +GnRH agonist (triptorelin) 300 1.19 0.98 1.45 - - -
GnRH antagonist suppression:1.41 (1.04, 1.91)

From: 3, Results

Cover of Effectiveness of Assisted Reproductive Technology
Effectiveness of Assisted Reproductive Technology.
Evidence Reports/Technology Assessments, No. 167.
Myers ER, McCrory DC, Mills AA, et al.

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.