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

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

Journal

Clinical and experimental reproductive medicine
ISSN: 2233-8233
Titre abrégé: Clin Exp Reprod Med
Pays: Korea (South)
ID NLM: 101563916

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Sep 2021
Historique:
received: 12 08 2020
accepted: 22 04 2021
pubmed: 10 8 2021
medline: 10 8 2021
entrez: 9 8 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

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. 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. 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). 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.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34370944
pii: cerm.2020.04021
doi: 10.5653/cerm.2020.04021
pmc: PMC8421659
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

262-267

Références

Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;19 Suppl 4:4331
pubmed: 20034417
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 18;11(3):e0151388
pubmed: 26991890
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Oct 05;(10):CD009154
pubmed: 21975790
Reprod Biomed Online. 2018 Jun;36(6):630-645
pubmed: 29550390
J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2019 Feb;48(2):95-98
pubmed: 30347257
Semin Reprod Med. 2015 Mar;33(2):118-27
pubmed: 25734349
Iran J Reprod Med. 2013 Mar;11(3):227-34
pubmed: 24639750
Reprod Biomed Online. 2012 Aug;25(2):139-45
pubmed: 22683150
Fertil Steril. 2013 Sep;100(3):860-6
pubmed: 23806850
Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2009 Aug;5(4):403-7
pubmed: 19753133
Fertil Steril. 2002 Feb;77(2):318-23
pubmed: 11821090
Curr Nutr Rep. 2015 Sep;4(3):265-272
pubmed: 26457232
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jul 07;(7):CD009154
pubmed: 26148507
Gynecol Endocrinol. 2018 Sep;34(9):766-771
pubmed: 29546775
Fertil Steril. 2014 Jan;101(1):112-119.e3
pubmed: 24140033
Hum Reprod. 2014 Oct 10;29(10):2212-20
pubmed: 25100106
Reprod Health. 2018 Feb 27;15(1):34
pubmed: 29486787

Auteurs

Marcel Schütt (M)

Department of Gynecological Endocrinology, Reproductive Medicine and Osteoporosis, University Hospital Giessen and Marburg, Philipps University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany.

The Duy Nguyen (TD)

Department of Gynecological Endocrinology, Reproductive Medicine and Osteoporosis, University Hospital Giessen and Marburg, Philipps University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany.

Martha Kalff-Suske (M)

Department of Gynecological Endocrinology, Reproductive Medicine and Osteoporosis, University Hospital Giessen and Marburg, Philipps University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany.

Uwe Wagner (U)

Department of Gynecological Endocrinology, Reproductive Medicine and Osteoporosis, University Hospital Giessen and Marburg, Philipps University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany.

Georg Macharey (G)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.

Volker Ziller (V)

Department of Gynecological Endocrinology, Reproductive Medicine and Osteoporosis, University Hospital Giessen and Marburg, Philipps University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany.

Classifications MeSH