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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |