Journal of Reproduction & Infertility

Journal of Reproduction & Infertility

Luteal Phase Support in Intrauterine Insemination Cycles: A Randomized Clinical Trial of Vaginal Versus Intramuscular Progesterone Administration

Authors
1 Abnormal Uterine Bleeding Research Center, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran; Department of Infertility, Amir-AL-Momenin Hospital, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran
2 Abnormal Uterine Bleeding Research Center, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran
3 Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran
Abstract
Background: Different progesterone doses and routes are used for luteal phase support in stimulated intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles, but the optimal supplementation scheme has not yet been determined. Therefore, our aim was to compare the administration of two different doses of vaginal progesterone with two doses of intramuscular (IM) progesterone for luteal phase support in patients undergoing IUI cycles. Methods: In this randomized clinical trial, 312 women with unexplained or male-factor infertility intending to start IUI cycles between April 2015 and January 2018 were included. They were randomized into four groups (n=78/each) including group 1 who received IM progesterone in oil (25 mg daily), group 2 who received IM progesterone in oil (50 mg daily), group 3 who received progesterone suppository (400 mg daily), and group 4 who received progesterone suppository (800 mg daily; 400 mg twice daily). The primary outcome was the clinical pregnancy rate. The ongoing pregnancy rate, abortion rate, and patients’ satisfaction, and convenience the secondary outcomes. Results: In our study, the overall clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates per cycle with COS and IUI were 16.02% and 12.8%, respectively. There were no significant differences in clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, and abortion rates among groups (p=0.84). The overall patients’ satisfaction and convenience was significantly higher in the vaginal progesterone suppository groups than the IM progesterone groups (p=0.001). Conclusion: The results of this study showed that vaginal progesterone administration provides a more easy-to-use and convenient method than IM progesterone administration for luteal phase support in IUI cycles with comparable pregnancy rates.
Keywords

  1. Honda T, Tsutsumi M, Komoda F, Tatsumi K. Acceptable pregnancy rate of unstimulated intrauterine insemination: a retrospective analysis of 17,830 cycles. Reprod Med Biol. 2015;14(1):27-32.
  2. Cohlen BJ. Should luteal phase support be introduced in ovarian stimulation/IUI programmes? an evidence-based review. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;19 Suppl 4:31-8.
  3. van der Linden M, Buckingham K, Farquhar C, Kremer JAM, Metwally M. Luteal phase support for assisted reproduction cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;2015(7):CD009154.
  4. Fauser BCJM, Devroey P. Reproductive biology and IVF: ovarian stimulation and luteal phase consequences. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2003;14(5):236-42.
  5. Erdem A, Erdem M, Atmaca S, Guler I. Impact of luteal phase support on pregnancy rates in intrauterine insemination cycles: a prospective randomized study. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(6):2508-13.
  6. Seckin B, Turkcapar F, Yildiz Y, Senturk B, Yilmaz N, Gulerman C. Effect of luteal phase support with vaginal progesterone in intrauterine insemination cycles with regard to follicular response: a prospective randomized study. J Reprod Med. 2014;59(5-6):260-6.
  7. Peeraer K, D’Hooghe T, Laurent P, Pelckmans S, Delvigne A, Laenen A, et al. Impact of luteal phase support with vaginal progesterone on the clinical pregnancy rate in intrauterine insemination cycles stimulated with gonadotropins: a randomized multicenter study. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(6):1490-5.
  8. Keskin M, Aytaç R. Does luteal phase support effect pregnancy rates in intrauterine insemination cycles? a prospective randomised controlled study in a tertiary center. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2020;2020:6234070.
  9. Green KA, Zolton JR, Schermerhorn SMV, Lewis TD, Healy MW, Terry N, et al. Progesterone luteal support after ovulation induction and intrauterine insemination: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(4):924-33.
  10. Miralpeix E, González-Comadran M, Solà I, Manau D, Carreras R, Checa MA. Efficacy of luteal phase support with vaginal progesterone in intrauterine insemination: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31(1):89-100.
  11. Gün İ, Özdamar Ö, Yılmaz A. Luteal phase support in intrauterine insemination cycles. Turk J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;13(2):90-4.
  12. Tavaniotou A, Smitz J, Bourgain C, Devroey P. Comparison between different routes of progesterone administration as luteal phase support in infertility treatments. Hum Reprod Update. 2000;6(2):139-48.
  13. Zarutskie PW, Phillips JA. A meta-analysis of the route of administration of luteal phase support in assisted reproductive technology: vaginal versus intramuscular progesterone. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(1):163-9.
  14. Cicinelli E, de Ziegler D, Bulletti C, Matteo MG, Schonauer LM, Galantino P. Direct transport of progesterone from vagina to uterus. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95(3):403-6.
  15. Khadem N, Looii MA. Comparing 17-α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate and progesterone in oil for luteal phase support in IUI cycles. J Reprod Infertil. 2007;8(3):230-7.
  16. Khosravi D, Taheripanah R, Taheripanah A, Monfared VT, Hosseini-Zijoud SM. Comparison of oral dydrogesterone with vaginal progesteronefor luteal support in IUI cycles: a randomized clinical trial. Iran J Reprod Med. 2015;13(7):433-8.
  17. Biberoglu EH, Tanrıkulu F, Erdem M, Erdem A, Biberoglu KO. Luteal phase support in intrauterine insemination cycles: a prospective randomized study of 300 mg versus 600 mg intravaginal progesterone tablet. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2016;32(1):55-7.
  18. Beltsos AN, Sanchez MD, Doody KJ, Bush MR, Domar AD, Collins MG. Patients’ administration preferences: progesterone vaginal insert (endometrin®) compared to intramuscular progesterone for luteal phase support. Reprod Health. 2014;11:78.
  19. Doody K, Bush M, Collins M. Progesterone supplementation for luteal support: efficacy and patient experiences with vaginal inserts (endometrin®) versus intramuscular injection. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(3):S18.
  20. Zaman AY, Coskun S, Alsanie AA, Awartani KA. Intramuscular progesterone (Gestone) versus vaginal progesterone suppository (Cyclogest) for luteal phase support in cycles of in vitro fertilization–embryo transfer: patient preference and drug efficacy. Fertil Res Pract. 2017;3:17.