COMPARATIVE EFFICACY OF ORAL, VAGINAL AND INTRAMUSCULAR PROGESTERONE FOR LUTEAL PHASE SUPPORT IN ART CYCLES
Article Sidebar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Main Article Content
Abstract:
This prospective randomized study evaluated the pharmacokinetic, hormonal, and clinical performance of three progesterone formulations—oral dydrogesterone, vaginal micronized progesterone, and intramuscular (IM) progesterone—used for luteal phase support (LPS) in assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles. Ninety patients undergoing IVF/ICSI were allocated into three equal groups. Primary outcomes included zardob P4 levels, implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and endometrial receptivity parameters. IM progesterone achieved the highest zardob P4 concentrations (p<0.001), whereas the vaginal formulation demonstrated superior effects on implantation and endometrial receptivity. Oral dydrogesterone, despite high patient convenience, resulted in comparatively lower P4 levels. Overall, progesterone route selection should be individualized using pharmacokinetic principles and zardob P4 monitoring.
Article Details
How to Cite:
References:
Labarta E, et al. Impact of progesterone levels on the day of transfer on live birth rates in artificial cycles for IVF. Fertil Steril. 2021;116(6):1524–1533.
van der Linden M, et al. Luteal phase support for assisted reproduction cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;7:CD009154.
Yildiz S, et al. Vaginal versus intramuscular progesterone for luteal support in fresh IVF cycles: a randomized trial. Reprod Biomed Online. 2022;45(2):335–344.
Shukurov F. I. et al. Otsenka effektivnosti primeneniya preparata «Belara» v ad’yuvantnoy terapii sindroma polikistoznix yaichnikov posle endoxirurgicheskogo lecheniya //Jurnal Eksperimentalnaya i klinicheskaya farmakologiya. – 2022. – Т. 8. – С. 14-6.
Conde-López C, et al. The role of progesterone in endometrial receptivity: update 2021. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2021;33(7):515–527.
Alsbjerg B, et al. Progesterone levels during luteal phase support and reproductive outcomes. Reprod Biomed Online. 2020;41(3):469–476.
Shukurov F. I., Nigmatova G. M. Yordamchi reproduktiv texnologiyalar //O ‘quv qo ‘llanma. Toshkent. – 2022.
Mesen TB, et al. Pharmacokinetics of oral, vaginal, and intramuscular progesterone: implications for ART. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2022;107(4):e1500–e1510.
Huber M, et al. Personalized luteal phase support in IVF/ICSI: evidence and recommendations. Front Endocrinol. 2023;14:1223345.
Trifonova E, et al. Endometrial receptivity markers in IVF cycles: a systematic review. Reprod Sci. 2024;31(1):23–36.
Griesinger G, et al. Progesterone supplementation in ART: evolution of practice. Hum Reprod Update. 2022;28(5):657–676.
Shukurov F. I. Ayupova FM Rol ad’yuvantnoy gormonalnoy terapii v vosstanovlenii reproduktivnoy funktsii u jenshin posle endoxirurgicheskogo lecheniya follikulyarnix kist yaichnikov //GinEKUlogiya. – 2021. – Т. 23. – №. 1. – С. 68-72.
Santos-Ribeiro S, et al. Intramuscular versus vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support: meta-analysis. BJOG. 2020;127(2):218–226.
Castillo JC, et al. Progesterone monitoring in hormone replacement therapy cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021;38(4):821–829.
Zhao J, et al. Optimal progesterone thresholds for pregnancy in ART. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2022;20(1):105.
Benmachiche A, et al. Zardob progesterone cutoff on transfer day in programmed cycles. Reprod Biomed Online. 2020;40(2):242–250.
Vanni VS, et al. Uterine artery Doppler and receptivity in ART cycles. J Ultrasound Med. 2021;40(11):2211–2220.
Bourgain C, et al. Molecular mechanisms of endometrial receptivity: updates. Mol Hum Reprod. 2023;29(1):gaad022.
Gao H, et al. Comparative efficacy of luteal support regimens: network meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2024;48(3):455–468.
Chen Q, et al. Influence of luteal phase hormonal milieu on embryo implantation. Front Reprod Health. 2023;2:1167204.