» Articles » PMID: 10782572

Comparison Between Different Routes of Progesterone Administration As Luteal Phase Support in Infertility Treatments

Overview
Date 2000 Apr 27
PMID 10782572
Citations 40
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Different routes of natural progesterone supplementation have been tried as luteal phase support in infertility treatments. Orally administered progesterone is rapidly metabolized in the gastrointestinal tract and its use has proved to be inferior to i.m. and vaginal routes. Progesterone i.m. achieves serum progesterone values that are within the range of luteal phase and results in sufficient secretory transformation of the endometrium and satisfactory pregnancy rates. The comparison between i.m. and vaginal progesterone has led to controversial results as regards the superiority of one or the other in inducing secretory endometrial transformation. However, there is increasing evidence in the literature to favour the use of vaginal progesterone. Vaginally administered progesterone achieves adequate endometrial secretory transformation but its pharmacokinetic properties are greatly dependent on the formulation used. After vaginal progesterone application, discrepancies have been detected between serum progesterone values and histological endometrial features. Vaginally administered progesterone results in adequate secretory endometrial transformation, despite serum progesterone values lower than those observed after i.m. administration, even if they are lower than those observed during the luteal phase of the natural cycle. This discrepancy is indicative of the first uterine pass effect and therefore of a better bioavailability of progesterone in the uterus, with minimal systematic undesirable effects.

Citing Articles

Comparison of vaginal versus intramuscular progesterone in programmed cycles for frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer in patients with endometriosis.

Jin Z, Yang G, Wen T, Miao B, Wang C, Zhang Q Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2025; 23(1):20.

PMID: 39915817 PMC: 11800567. DOI: 10.1186/s12958-025-01354-7.


No improvement in pregnancy and perinatal outcomes with combined luteal support in modified natural cycle frozen embryo transfer.

Zhang W, Wu S, Ren B, Jia R, Zhang W, Wang B Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2025; 15:1458527.

PMID: 39882266 PMC: 11774695. DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2024.1458527.


FSH/LH co-stimulation in Advanced Maternal Age (AMA) and hypo-responder patients - Arabian gulf delphi consensus group.

Awwad J, Peramo B, Elgeyoushi B, Melado L, Salame A, Chawla M Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2024; 15:1506332.

PMID: 39726844 PMC: 11669953. DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2024.1506332.


Current Ovulation and Luteal Phase Tracking Methods and Technologies for Fertility and Family Planning: A Review.

Wegrzynowicz A, Eyvazzadeh A, Beckley A Semin Reprod Med. 2024; 42(2):100-111.

PMID: 39303740 PMC: 11837971. DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1791190.


Comparing the outcomes of in-vitro fertilization in patients receiving vaginal, subcutaneous, and intramuscular progesterone for luteal phase support: a three-armed randomized controlled trial.

Tehraninejad E, Alizadeh S, Nekoo E, Zargarzadeh N, Shariat M, Haghollahi F BMC Womens Health. 2024; 24(1):481.

PMID: 39223536 PMC: 11367876. DOI: 10.1186/s12905-024-03337-z.