Different routes of natural progesterone supplementation have been tried as luteal phase support in infertility treatments. Orally administered progesterone is rapidly metabolized in the gastrointestinal tract and its use has proved to be inferior to i.m. and vaginal routes. Progesterone i.m. achieves serum progesterone values that are within the range of luteal phase and results in sufficient secretory transformation of the endometrium and satisfactory pregnancy rates. The comparison between i.m. and vaginal progesterone has led to controversial results as regards the superiority of one or the other in inducing secretory endometrial transformation. However, there is increasing evidence in the literature to favour the use of vaginal progesterone. Vaginally administered progesterone achieves adequate endometrial secretory transformation but its pharmacokinetic properties are greatly dependent on the formulation used. After vaginal progesterone application, discrepancies have been detected between serum progesterone values and histological endometrial features. Vaginally administered progesterone results in adequate secretory endometrial transformation, despite serum progesterone values lower than those observed after i.m. administration, even if they are lower than those observed during the luteal phase of the natural cycle. This discrepancy is indicative of the first uterine pass effect and therefore of a better bioavailability of progesterone in the uterus, with minimal systematic undesirable effects.

No abstract

No abstract

Luteinizing hormone (LH) is mandatory for the maintenance of the corpus luteum. Ovarian stimulation for IVF has been associated with a defective luteal phase. The luteal phases of two groups of patients with normal menstrual cycles and no endocrinological cause of infertility were retrospectively analysed in IVF cycles. Thirty-one infertile patients stimulated with human menopausal gonadotrophins (HMG) for IVF to whom the gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist Cetrorelix 0.25 mg was also administered to prevent the LH surge (group I) were compared with 31 infertile patients stimulated with HMG alone (group II). Despite differences in the stimulation outcome, luteal LH serum concentrations were similar in the two groups. LH values dropped from 2.3 +/- 1 IU/l on the day of human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) administration to 1.1 +/- 0.7 IU/l on day HCG +2 in group I (P < 0.0001) and from 5.1 +/- 3 to 1.2 +/- 1.7 IU/l (P < 0.0001) in group II. In the mid-luteal phase, LH concentrations were low in both groups. Our results suggest that suppressed LH concentrations in the early and mid-luteal phase may not be attributed solely to the GnRH-antagonist administration. Pituitary LH secretion may be inhibited by supraphysiological steroid serum concentrations via long-loop feedback and/or by the central action of the exogenously administered HCG via a short-loop mechanism.

Abnormalities in the luteal phase have been detected in virtually all the stimulation protocols used in in vitro fertilization, on both the hormonal and endometrial levels. Supraphysiological follicular or luteal sex steroid serum concentrations, altered estradiol: progesterone (E2/P) ratio, and disturbed luteinizing hormone pituitary secretion leading to corpus luteum insufficiency or a direct drug effect have been postulated as the main etiologic factors. Luteinizing hormone supports corpus luteum function, and low LH levels have been described after human menopausal gonadotropin treatment, after gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH)-agonist treatment, or after GnRH-antagonist treatment. These low luteal LH levels may lead to an insufficient corpus luteum function and consequently to a shortened luteal phase or to the low luteal progesterone concentrations frequently described after ovulation induction. A direct effect of the GnRH agonist or GnRH antagonist on human corpus luteum or on human endometrium and thus on endometrial receptivity cannot be excluded, as GnRH receptors have been described in both compartments. Endometrial histology has revealed a wide range of abnormalities during the various stimulation protocols. In GnRH-agonist cycles, mid-luteal biopsies have revealed increased glandulo-stromal dyssynchrony and delay in endometrial development, strong positivity of endometrial glands for progesterone receptors, decreased alphavbeta3-integrin subunit expression, and earlier appearance of surface epithelium pinopodes. These factors suggest a shift forwards of the implantation window. Progesterone supplementation improves endometrial histology, and its necessity has been well established, at least in cycles using GnRH agonists.