Subcutaneous progesterone versus vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization: A retrospective analysis from daily clinical practice
- PMID: 34370944
- PMCID: PMC8421659
- DOI: 10.5653/cerm.2020.04021
Subcutaneous progesterone versus vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization: A retrospective analysis from daily clinical practice
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.
Conflict of interest statement
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Similar articles
-
A Phase III randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy, safety and tolerability of oral dydrogesterone versus micronized vaginal progesterone for luteal support in in vitro fertilization.Hum Reprod. 2017 May 1;32(5):1019-1027. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dex023. Hum Reprod. 2017. PMID: 28333318 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Efficacy, safety and tolerability of progesterone vaginal pessaries versus progesterone vaginal gel for luteal phase support after in vitro fertilisation: a randomised controlled trial.Hum Reprod. 2020 Feb 29;35(2):355-363. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dez261. Hum Reprod. 2020. PMID: 32074281 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
A prospective randomized multicentre study comparing vaginal progesterone gel and vaginal micronized progesterone tablets for luteal support after in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection.Hum Reprod. 2012 Dec;27(12):3467-73. doi: 10.1093/humrep/des341. Epub 2012 Sep 27. Hum Reprod. 2012. PMID: 23019296 Clinical Trial.
-
The role of luteal support during IVF: a qualitative systematic review.Gynecol Endocrinol. 2019 Oct;35(10):829-834. doi: 10.1080/09513590.2019.1603288. Epub 2019 Apr 29. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2019. PMID: 31032676
-
Evaluation of an optimal luteal phase support protocol in IVF.Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2001 May;80(5):452-66. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0412.2001.080005452.x. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2001. PMID: 11328224 Review.
Cited by
-
Comparing the outcomes of in-vitro fertilization in patients receiving vaginal, subcutaneous, and intramuscular progesterone for luteal phase support: a three-armed randomized controlled trial.BMC Womens Health. 2024 Sep 2;24(1):481. doi: 10.1186/s12905-024-03337-z. BMC Womens Health. 2024. PMID: 39223536 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Systematic use of long-acting intramuscular progesterone in addition to oral dydrogesterone as luteal phase support for single fresh blastocyst transfer: A pilot study.Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2022 Dec 23;13:1039579. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2022.1039579. eCollection 2022. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2022. PMID: 36619564 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Fatemi HM. The luteal phase after 3 decades of IVF: what do we know? Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;19 Suppl 4:4331. - PubMed
-
- Yanushpolsky EH. Luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization. Semin Reprod Med. 2015;33:118–27. - PubMed
-
- 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
-
- 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
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources