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.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Ensieh Shahrokh Tehraninejad, Sanaz Alizadeh, Elham Azimi Nekoo, Nikan Zargarzadeh, Mamak Shariat, Fedyeh Haghollahi, Azadeh Tarafdari, Mohammadamin Parsaei
{"title":"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.","authors":"Ensieh Shahrokh Tehraninejad, Sanaz Alizadeh, Elham Azimi Nekoo, Nikan Zargarzadeh, Mamak Shariat, Fedyeh Haghollahi, Azadeh Tarafdari, Mohammadamin Parsaei","doi":"10.1186/s12905-024-03337-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The optimal approach to luteal-phase support in infertility treatment remains a subject of debate. This study was conducted to investigate the clinical outcomes, side effects, and patient satisfaction associated with vaginal, subcutaneous, and intramuscular progesterone administration in infertile women undergoing Frozen Embryo Transfer (FET).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This three-armed randomized clinical trial assigned infertile patients eligible for FET to three progesterone treatment groups: vaginal suppositories (400 mg twice daily; n = 100), subcutaneous injections (25 mg daily; n = 102), and intramuscular injections (50 mg daily; n = 108). The primary outcomes were chemical and clinical pregnancy rates per embryo transfer cycle, with chemical pregnancy defined as beta-human chorionic gonadotropin levels > 50 IU/mL two weeks post-transfer and clinical pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound four weeks later. Exploratory outcomes included progesterone-related adverse effects and participant satisfaction, assessed via a Likert-scale survey 12 weeks post-transfer. Statistical analyses included Chi-square tests for categorical data, one-way analysis of variances, and Kruskal-Wallis tests for continuous data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The intramuscular progesterone group had significantly higher chemical pregnancy rates compared to the vaginal and subcutaneous groups (41.7% vs. 26.0% and 27.5%, respectively; p = 0.026). Although the clinical pregnancy rate was also higher in the intramuscular group (32.4%) compared to the vaginal (23.0%) and subcutaneous groups (21.6%), this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.148). Additionally, patient satisfaction was greater with vaginal and subcutaneous applications than with intramuscular injections (p < 0.001), likely due to a significantly higher incidence of side effects, such as pain and edema at the injection site, in the intramuscular group (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found that intramuscular progesterone resulted in higher chemical pregnancy rates than vaginal or subcutaneous routes, but this did not translate into higher clinical pregnancy rates. Despite its effectiveness, intramuscular administration was associated with more adverse effects and lower patient satisfaction. Future research should explore optimizing progesterone regimens to balance efficacy and patient comfort.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The trial protocol was registered on December 6, 2020, in the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT), a primary registry in the World Health Organization (WHO) Registry Network, under the registration number IRCT20141217020351N12.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11367876/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-024-03337-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The optimal approach to luteal-phase support in infertility treatment remains a subject of debate. This study was conducted to investigate the clinical outcomes, side effects, and patient satisfaction associated with vaginal, subcutaneous, and intramuscular progesterone administration in infertile women undergoing Frozen Embryo Transfer (FET).

Methods: This three-armed randomized clinical trial assigned infertile patients eligible for FET to three progesterone treatment groups: vaginal suppositories (400 mg twice daily; n = 100), subcutaneous injections (25 mg daily; n = 102), and intramuscular injections (50 mg daily; n = 108). The primary outcomes were chemical and clinical pregnancy rates per embryo transfer cycle, with chemical pregnancy defined as beta-human chorionic gonadotropin levels > 50 IU/mL two weeks post-transfer and clinical pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound four weeks later. Exploratory outcomes included progesterone-related adverse effects and participant satisfaction, assessed via a Likert-scale survey 12 weeks post-transfer. Statistical analyses included Chi-square tests for categorical data, one-way analysis of variances, and Kruskal-Wallis tests for continuous data.

Results: The intramuscular progesterone group had significantly higher chemical pregnancy rates compared to the vaginal and subcutaneous groups (41.7% vs. 26.0% and 27.5%, respectively; p = 0.026). Although the clinical pregnancy rate was also higher in the intramuscular group (32.4%) compared to the vaginal (23.0%) and subcutaneous groups (21.6%), this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.148). Additionally, patient satisfaction was greater with vaginal and subcutaneous applications than with intramuscular injections (p < 0.001), likely due to a significantly higher incidence of side effects, such as pain and edema at the injection site, in the intramuscular group (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: We found that intramuscular progesterone resulted in higher chemical pregnancy rates than vaginal or subcutaneous routes, but this did not translate into higher clinical pregnancy rates. Despite its effectiveness, intramuscular administration was associated with more adverse effects and lower patient satisfaction. Future research should explore optimizing progesterone regimens to balance efficacy and patient comfort.

Trial registration: The trial protocol was registered on December 6, 2020, in the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT), a primary registry in the World Health Organization (WHO) Registry Network, under the registration number IRCT20141217020351N12.

比较接受阴道、皮下和肌肉注射黄体酮以支持黄体期的患者进行体外受精的结果:一项三臂随机对照试验。
背景:不孕症治疗中黄体期支持的最佳方法仍存在争议。本研究旨在调查接受冷冻胚胎移植(FET)的不孕妇女使用阴道、皮下和肌肉注射黄体酮的临床效果、副作用和患者满意度:这项三臂随机临床试验将符合冷冻胚胎移植条件的不孕患者分配到三个黄体酮治疗组:阴道栓剂(400 毫克,每天两次;n = 100)、皮下注射(25 毫克,每天一次;n = 102)和肌肉注射(50 毫克,每天一次;n = 108)。主要结果是每个胚胎移植周期的化学妊娠率和临床妊娠率,其中化学妊娠的定义是胚胎移植两周后β-人绒毛膜促性腺激素水平> 50 IU/mL,四周后经超声证实临床妊娠。探索性结果包括黄体酮相关不良反应和参与者满意度,在移植后 12 周通过李克特量表调查进行评估。统计分析包括分类数据的卡方检验、单因素方差分析和连续数据的 Kruskal-Wallis 检验:结果:肌肉注射黄体酮组的化学妊娠率明显高于阴道注射组和皮下注射组(分别为 41.7% 对 26.0% 和 27.5%;P = 0.026)。虽然肌肉注射组的临床妊娠率(32.4%)也高于阴道注射组(23.0%)和皮下注射组(21.6%),但这一差异并无统计学意义(P = 0.148)。此外,与肌肉注射相比,阴道和皮下注射的患者满意度更高(p 结论:肌肉注射孕激素的患者满意度较高,而阴道和皮下注射的患者满意度较低):我们发现,与阴道或皮下注射黄体酮相比,肌肉注射黄体酮的化学妊娠率更高,但这并没有转化为更高的临床妊娠率。尽管肌肉注射黄体酮有效,但其不良反应较多,患者满意度较低。未来的研究应探索优化黄体酮方案,以平衡疗效和患者舒适度:该试验方案于2020年12月6日在伊朗临床试验注册中心(IRCT)注册,IRCT是世界卫生组织(WHO)注册网络的一个主要注册中心,注册号为IRCT20141217020351N12。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信