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
  • [41] Subcutaneous aqueous versus vaginal progesterone gel for luteal phase support in intrauterine insemination cycles: a pilot randomized, controlled trial
    Venturella, R.
    Mocciaro, R.
    Lico, D.
    Rocca, M.
    Di Cello, A.
    Piccione, F.
    D'Alessandro, P.
    Morelli, M.
    Zullo, F.
    HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2016, 31 : 304 - 305
  • [42] Subcutaneous progesterone (Prolutex) versus vaginal (Cyclogest) for luteal phase support in IVF/ICSI cycles: a randomized controlled clinical trial
    Ashraf Moini
    Arezoo Arabipoor
    Zahra Zolfaghari
    Maria Sadeghi
    Fariba Ramezanali
    Middle East Fertility Society Journal, 27
  • [43] Progesterone Vaginal Ring for Luteal Support
    Stadtmauer L.
    Waud K.
    The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India, 2015, 65 (1) : 5 - 10
  • [44] Progesterone luteal support after ovulation induction and intrauterine insemination: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
    Green, Katherine A.
    Zolton, Jessica R.
    Schermerhorn, Sophia M. V.
    Lewis, Terrence D.
    Healy, Mae W.
    Terry, Nancy
    DeCherney, Alan H.
    Hill, Micah J.
    FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2017, 107 (04) : 924 - 933.e5
  • [45] PROGESTERONE LUTEAL SUPPORT FOLLOWING OVULATION INDUCTION AND INTRAUTERINE INSEMINATION CYCLES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
    Hill, M. J.
    Whitcomb, B. W.
    Lewis, T. D.
    Levens, E. D.
    DeCherney, A. H.
    Propst, A. M.
    FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2013, 100 (03) : S301 - S301
  • [46] Luteal phase support using either progesterone gel (Crinone 8%®) or progesterone suppositories (Utrogest®):: results of a prospective, randomised study
    Schwartz, P
    Ludwig, M
    Babahan, B
    Katalinic, A
    Bals-Pratsch, M
    Felberbaum, RE
    Al-Hasani, S
    Diedrich, K
    HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2000, 15 : 43 - 44
  • [47] Luteal phase support using micronized vaginal progesterone as pessaries or capsules in artificial cycles: is there any difference?
    Labarta, Elena
    Rodriguez-Varela, Cristina
    Salvaleda-Mateu, Maria
    Kohls, Graciela
    Bosch, Ernesto
    REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE, 2024, 48 (05)
  • [48] Patients’ administration preferences: progesterone vaginal insert (Endometrin®) compared to intramuscular progesterone for Luteal phase support
    Angeline N Beltsos
    Mark D Sanchez
    Kevin J Doody
    Mark R Bush
    Alice D Domar
    Michael G Collins
    Reproductive Health, 11
  • [49] Clinical use of aqueous subcutaneous progesterone compared with vaginal progesterone as luteal support in in vitro fertilization: A randomized controlled study in Taiwan
    Kao, Tzu-Ching
    Tu, Yi-An
    Yang, Po -Kai
    Huang, Chu -Chun
    Yang, Jehn-Hsiahn
    Chen, Shee-Uan
    Chao, Kuang-Han
    TAIWANESE JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2022, 61 (05): : 863 - 867
  • [50] Luteal phase progesterone support after in vitro fertilization: increased prevalence of vaginal bleeding using intravaginal natural progesterone versus intramuscular progesterone.
    Richardson, TA
    Robinson, RD
    Hickman, TN
    Davis, SR
    FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2001, 76 (03) : S167 - S167