Subcutaneous Progesterone (Prolutex) Versus Vaginal (Cyclogest) for Luteal Phase Support in Ivf/Icsi Cycles: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Publisher



Moini A^{1, 2, 3} ; Arabipoor A¹ ; Zolfaghari Z⁴ ; Sadeghi M¹ ; Ramezanali F¹ Show Affiliations
Source: Middle East Fertility Society Journal Published:2022

Abstract

Background: To compare the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of subcutaneous vaginal progesterone suppository for luteal phase support (LPS) in assisted reproduction technology (ART) cycles in patients referred to the Royan Institute. Methods: This randomized clinical trial was conducted from August 2016 to March 2018. The infertile patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) and/or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) were evaluated. The controlled ovarian stimulation (COH) was performed in all of the patients with standard long GnRH agonist protocol. After ovum pickup, eligible women were randomly allocated into two groups. In group A, since oocyte retrieval day, subcutaneous injections of progesterone (50 mg) (Prolutex®) were used daily, and in group B, two vaginal suppositories (Cyclogest ®) were administrated for LPS. The clinical pregnancy and miscarriage rates and the drug’s side effect were compared between two groups by appropriate statistical tests. Results: Finally, 40 patients in each group were enrolled, and the IVF/ICSI outcomes were compared between groups. The data analysis showed that no significant differences were found between groups in terms of the demographic, infertility characteristics, and the COH outcome between groups. The chemical and clinical pregnancy rates (CPR) in group A were significantly higher than those of group B (P = 0.04, P = 0.02, respectively). The implantation and twin pregnancy rates in group B were significantly higher than those in group A (P = 0.009, P = 0.02, respectively). Conclusion: The subcutaneous administration of progesterone 25 mg twice daily for LPS was associated with higher CPR versus vaginal progesterone, and it was safe and well-tolerated in the follow-up. In addition, it can be a suitable replacement in cases of allergic reactions to vaginal suppositories. However, further study is required to compare the cost-effectiveness of these medications. Trial registration: The study was also registered in the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials on February 19, 2015 (IRCT201402191141N18 at www.irct.ir, registered prospectively). © 2022, The Author(s).