Luteal Phase Support Using Subcutaneous Progesterone: A Systematic Review

被引:5
|
作者
Conforti, Alessandro [1 ]
Carbone, Luigi [1 ]
Iorio, Giuseppe Gabriele [1 ]
Cariati, Federica [2 ]
Bagnulo, Francesca [3 ]
Marrone, Vincenzo [3 ]
Strina, Ida [1 ]
Alviggi, Carlo [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Naples Federico II, Dept Neurosci Reprod Sci & Odontostomatol, Naples, Italy
[2] CEINGE Biotecnol Avanzate Scarl, Naples, Italy
[3] AOU Policlin Federico II, IVF Unit, Naples, Italy
来源
关键词
progesterone; subcutaneous progesterone; assisted reproductive technology; in-vitro fertilization; luteal phase support; luteal phase defect; ovulation induction; systematic review; ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY; LOW PROGNOSIS PATIENTS; VAGINAL PROGESTERONE; OVARIAN STIMULATION; BLASTOCYST TRANSFER; POSEIDON CRITERIA; EMBRYO-TRANSFER; CYCLES; EFFICACY; SAFETY;
D O I
10.3389/frph.2021.634813
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Luteal phase support (LPS) is crucial in assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles when the luteal phase has been found to be defective. Such deficiency is most likely related to the supraphysiological steroid levels that usually occurr in stimulated cycles which, in turn, could severely affect luteinizing hormone (LH) secretion and function, thereby negatively influencing the luteal phase. A number of different medications and routes have been successfully used for LPS in ART. Although an optimal protocol has not yet been identified, the existing plethora of medications offer the opportunity to personalize LPS according to individual needs. Subcutaneous administration progesterone has been proposed for LPS and could represent an alternative to a vaginal and intramuscular route. The aim of the present systematic review is to summarize the evidence found in the literature concerning the application of subcutaneous progesterone in ARTs, highlighting the benefits and limits of this novel strategy. With this aim in mind, we carried out systematic research in the Medline, ISI Web of Knowledge, and Embase databases from their inception through to November 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were preferred by the authors in the elaboration of this article, although case-control and cohort studies have also been considered. According to our findings, evidence exists which supports that, in women with a good prognosis undergoing a fresh in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle, subcutaneous Pg is not inferior to vaginal products. In the Frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycle, data concerning efficacy is mixed with an increased miscarriage rate in women undergoing a subcutaneous route in oocyte donor recipients. Data concerning the acceptance of the subcutaneous route versus the vaginal route are encouraging despite the different scales and questionnaires which were used. In addition, a cost-effective analysis has not yet been conducted.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] WHICH DOSE AND ROUTE OF PROGESTERONE, IS BETTER FOR LUTEAL PHASE SUPPORT? SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMISED CONTROL TRAILS.
    Rao, Durga Gedela
    Vellanki, Sujatha Vv
    Gogula, Triveni
    FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2024, 122 (04) : E233 - E233
  • [32] Dydrogesterone as an oral alternative to vaginal progesterone for IVF luteal phase support: A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis
    Griesinger, Georg
    Blockeel, Christophe
    Kahler, Elke
    Pexman-Fieth, Claire
    Olofsson, Jan, I
    Driessen, Stefan
    Tournaye, Herman
    PLOS ONE, 2020, 15 (11):
  • [33] Subcutaneous Progesterone Is Effective and Safe for Luteal Phase Support in IVF: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of the Phase III Trials
    Doblinger, Jakob
    Cometti, Barbara
    Trevisan, Silvia
    Griesinger, Georg
    PLOS ONE, 2016, 11 (03):
  • [34] Estrogen addition to progesterone for luteal phase support in cycles stimulated with GnRH analogues and gonadotrophins for IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Kolibianakis, E. M.
    Venetis, C. A.
    Papanikolaou, E. G.
    Diedrich, K.
    Tarlatzis, B. C.
    Griesinger, G.
    HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2008, 23 (06) : 1346 - 1354
  • [35] Progesterone luteal support after ovulation induction and intrauterine insemination: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Hill, Micah J.
    Whitcomb, Brian W.
    Lewis, Terrence D.
    Wu, Mae
    Terry, Nancy
    DeCherney, Alan H.
    Levens, Eric D.
    Propst, Anthony M.
    FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2013, 100 (05) : 1373 - +
  • [36] Luteal phase support after IVF. What beyond progesterone?
    Cordes, T.
    Schultze-Mosgau, A.
    Diedrich, K.
    Griesinger, G.
    GYNAKOLOGISCHE ENDOKRINOLOGIE, 2010, 8 (02): : 117 - +
  • [37] ENDOMETRIN®/PROMETRIUM® VERSUS INTRAMUSCULAR PROGESTERONE ADMINISTRATION FOR LUTEAL PHASE SUPPORT
    Sabouni, Reem
    Williams, Daniel B.
    Griffith, Jason
    Haddad, Ghassan
    Wang, Wei-Hua
    Witz, Craig A.
    FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2016, 105 (02) : E35 - E36
  • [38] Luteal phase support with progesterone in intrauterine insemination: a prospective randomized study
    Romero Nieto, Maria Inmaculada
    Lorente Gonzalez, Juan
    Eduardo Arjona-Berral, Jose
    del Munoz-Villanueva, Maria
    Castelo-Branco, Camil
    GYNECOLOGICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY, 2014, 30 (03) : 197 - 201
  • [39] Vaginal versus intramuscular progesterone for luteal phase support in assisted reproductive techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
    Abdelhakim, Ahmed Mohamed
    Abd-ElGawad, Mohamed
    Hussein, Reda S.
    Abbas, Ahmed M.
    GYNECOLOGICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY, 2020, 36 (05) : 389 - 397
  • [40] Subcutaneous progesterone (Prolutex) versus vaginal (Cyclogest) for luteal phase support in IVF/ICSI cycles: a randomized controlled clinical trial
    Moini, Ashraf
    Arabipoor, Arezoo
    Zolfaghari, Zahra
    Sadeghi, Maria
    Ramezanali, Fariba
    MIDDLE EAST FERTILITY SOCIETY JOURNAL, 2022, 27 (01)