Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Sep;48(3):262-267.
doi: 10.5653/cerm.2020.04021. Epub 2021 Aug 9.

Subcutaneous progesterone versus vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization: A retrospective analysis from daily clinical practice

Affiliations

Subcutaneous progesterone versus vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization: A retrospective analysis from daily clinical practice

Marcel Schütt et al. Clin Exp Reprod Med. 2021 Sep.

Abstract

Objective: Progesterone application for luteal phase support is a well-established concept in in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. Water-soluble subcutaneous progesterone injections have shown pregnancy rates equivalent to those observed in patients receiving vaginal administration in randomized controlled trials. Our study aimed to investigate whether the results from those pivotal trials could be reproduced in daily clinical practice in an unselected patient population.

Methods: In this retrospective cohort study in non-standardized daily clinical practice, we compared 273 IVF cycles from 195 women undergoing IVF at our center for luteal phase support with vaginal administration of 200 mg of micronized progesterone three times daily or subcutaneous injection of 25 mg of progesterone per day.

Results: Various patient characteristics including age, weight, height, number of oocytes, and body mass index were similar between both groups. We observed no significant differences in the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) per treatment cycle between the subcutaneous (39.9%) and vaginal group (36.5%) (p=0.630). Covariate analysis showed significant correlations of the number of transferred embryos and the total dosage of stimulation medication with the CPR. However, after adjustment of the CPR for these covariates using a regression model, no significant difference was observed between the two groups (odds ratio, 0.956; 95% confidence interval, 0.152-1.786; p=0.888).

Conclusion: In agreement with randomized controlled trials in study populations with strict selection criteria, our study determined that subcutaneous progesterone was equally effective as vaginally applied progesterone in daily clinical practice in an unselected patient population.

Keywords: Fertilization in vitro; Human; Intravaginal administration; Luteal phase; Pregnancy rate; Progesterone; Reproduction; Retrospective studies; Subcutaneous injections.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Fatemi HM. The luteal phase after 3 decades of IVF: what do we know? Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;19 Suppl 4:4331. - PubMed
    1. Yanushpolsky EH. Luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization. Semin Reprod Med. 2015;33:118–27. - PubMed
    1. van der Linden M, Buckingham K, Farquhar C, Kremer JA, Metwally M. Luteal phase support for assisted reproduction cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(10):CD009154. - PubMed
    1. Schwartz E, Bernard L, Ohl J, Bettahar K, Rongieres C, Lichtblau I, et al. Luteal phase progesterone supplementation following induced natural cycle frozen embryo transfer: a retrospective cohort study. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2019;48:95–8. - PubMed
    1. Doblinger J, Cometti B, Trevisan S, Griesinger G. Subcutaneous progesterone is effective and safe for luteal phase support in IVF: an individual patient data meta-analysis of the phase III trials. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0151388. - PMC - PubMed