P-652 RCT to evaluate the necessity of routine luteal phase support after ovarian stimulation by oral ovulogens in intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles

Abstract

Abstract Study question 1. Is it beneficial to provide luteal phase support in each IUI cycle stimulated by oral ovulogens ? Summary answer 1. Luteal phase support with progesterone makes no significant difference in clinical pregnancy rate in oral ovulogen stimulated IUI cycles. What is known already ART (assisted reproductive techniques) involves superovulation to achieve the development of multiple follicles. This produces supraphysiological E2 levels that causes feedback inhibition of FSH and LH in luteal phase leading to luteal phase defect. In IUI,only few follicles develop ,so the above phenomenon is rarely seen. Today widespread use of progesterone in clinical practice has become a habit, instead of the need, adding to burden of medication and cost to the patient without much evidence to recommend it. Study design, size, duration Prospective Randomized control over 1 year 200 IUI cycles randomized to either supplementing luteal phase with tab dydrogesterone (Group A ,no.100) or not supplementing (Group B, No. 100) as per inclusion(Unexplained infertility,Mild male factor,Donor sperm IUI, PCOD,Coital factors,Mild endometriosis) and exclusion criteria(IUI with gonatotropin, age more than 38 years, thin endometrium ,previous two or more IUI failures, history suggestive of luteal phase defect, recurrent pregnancy loss, structural uterine anomaly, history of endocrine or autoimmune diseases) Participants/materials, setting, methods Transvaginal scan was conducted on day 2 , followed by ovarian stimulation with letrozole 2.5 mg for 5 days. HCG trigger (10000IU) was given When follicle reached 18- 24mm with endometrium >7mm and IUI timed 36 hours after. Computer generated random allocation was done with one group receiving luteal phase support with tab dydrogesterone 10mg twice a day(Group A)and other not receiving LPS(Group B).Outcome of study was studied in terms of clinical pregnancy on USG. Main results and the role of chance Among the patients recruited, infertility was observed to be primary infertility in 74% cases in Group B and 72% in Group A , whereas secondary infertility was observed in 26% cases in group B and 28% in group A (P = 0.75). Group B included mild male factor in 29%, 24% of polycystic ovarian syndrome, 17 % tubal, 15% poor ovarian reserve, 9% of unexplained and 6% had endometriosis. Whereas in group A, PCOS (25%),male factor (21%),poor ovarian reserve and unexplained in 20%, endometriosis in 8% and 6% had tubal infertility. Among patients, mean endometrium thickness on trigger day of group Band group A were 8.46 ± 1.36mm and 8.44 ± 1.17mm respectively. Conception was reported by a positive urine pregnancy test . Among Group B , 23% had a positive urine pregnancy test. Whereas, in controls Group A 21% had a positive test, the difference being statistically non-significant (p value = 0.733) Outcomes were expressed terms of clinical pregnancy described as the presence of intrauterine sac with foetal heart rate. Clinical pregnancy rate was 22% of group B and 21% in group A , difference was statistically nonsignificant (p = 0.755). Limitations, reasons for caution Due to limited period of study and hence restricted sample size, the trial needs to be extended over a larger sample size for further interpretation. Further subgroup analysis needs to be conducted when a larger study group is recruited. Wider implications of the findings This study suggested that luteal support does not significantly affect the clinical pregnancy rate in IUI cycles with oral ovulogens .Our study could be a basis for further analysis to determine whether treatment burden in the form of luteal phase support can be reduced in such patients. Trial registration number not applicable