Cargando…

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

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schütt, Marcel, Nguyen, The Duy, Kalff-Suske, Martha, Wagner, Uwe, Macharey, Georg, Ziller, Volker
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Korean Society for Reproductive Medicine 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8421659/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34370944
http://dx.doi.org/10.5653/cerm.2020.04021
_version_ 1783749130795876352
author Schütt, Marcel
Nguyen, The Duy
Kalff-Suske, Martha
Wagner, Uwe
Macharey, Georg
Ziller, Volker
author_facet Schütt, Marcel
Nguyen, The Duy
Kalff-Suske, Martha
Wagner, Uwe
Macharey, Georg
Ziller, Volker
author_sort Schütt, Marcel
collection PubMed
description 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, 0.512–1.786; 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8421659
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Korean Society for Reproductive Medicine
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84216592021-09-15 Subcutaneous progesterone versus vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization: A retrospective analysis from daily clinical practice Schütt, Marcel Nguyen, The Duy Kalff-Suske, Martha Wagner, Uwe Macharey, Georg Ziller, Volker Clin Exp Reprod Med Original Article 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, 0.512–1.786; 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. Korean Society for Reproductive Medicine 2021-09 2021-08-09 /pmc/articles/PMC8421659/ /pubmed/34370944 http://dx.doi.org/10.5653/cerm.2020.04021 Text en Copyright © 2021 THE KOREAN SOCIETY FOR REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Schütt, Marcel
Nguyen, The Duy
Kalff-Suske, Martha
Wagner, Uwe
Macharey, Georg
Ziller, Volker
Subcutaneous progesterone versus vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization: A retrospective analysis from daily clinical practice
title Subcutaneous progesterone versus vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization: A retrospective analysis from daily clinical practice
title_full Subcutaneous progesterone versus vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization: A retrospective analysis from daily clinical practice
title_fullStr Subcutaneous progesterone versus vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization: A retrospective analysis from daily clinical practice
title_full_unstemmed Subcutaneous progesterone versus vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization: A retrospective analysis from daily clinical practice
title_short Subcutaneous progesterone versus vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization: A retrospective analysis from daily clinical practice
title_sort subcutaneous progesterone versus vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization: a retrospective analysis from daily clinical practice
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8421659/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34370944
http://dx.doi.org/10.5653/cerm.2020.04021
work_keys_str_mv AT schuttmarcel subcutaneousprogesteroneversusvaginalprogesteroneforlutealphasesupportininvitrofertilizationaretrospectiveanalysisfromdailyclinicalpractice
AT nguyentheduy subcutaneousprogesteroneversusvaginalprogesteroneforlutealphasesupportininvitrofertilizationaretrospectiveanalysisfromdailyclinicalpractice
AT kalffsuskemartha subcutaneousprogesteroneversusvaginalprogesteroneforlutealphasesupportininvitrofertilizationaretrospectiveanalysisfromdailyclinicalpractice
AT wagneruwe subcutaneousprogesteroneversusvaginalprogesteroneforlutealphasesupportininvitrofertilizationaretrospectiveanalysisfromdailyclinicalpractice
AT machareygeorg subcutaneousprogesteroneversusvaginalprogesteroneforlutealphasesupportininvitrofertilizationaretrospectiveanalysisfromdailyclinicalpractice
AT zillervolker subcutaneousprogesteroneversusvaginalprogesteroneforlutealphasesupportininvitrofertilizationaretrospectiveanalysisfromdailyclinicalpractice