Soo Jin Han, Hoon Kim, Yun Soo Hong, Sung Woo Kim, Seung-Yup Ku, Chang Suk Suh
{"title":"Comparison of the efficacy of vaginal micronised progesterone tablet and gel for <i>in vitro</i> fertilisation.","authors":"Soo Jin Han, Hoon Kim, Yun Soo Hong, Sung Woo Kim, Seung-Yup Ku, Chang Suk Suh","doi":"10.1080/01443615.2024.2436518","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Luteal phase support (LPS) with progesterone is a generally accepted practice after controlled ovarian stimulation, although the best protocols for LPS have been debated. We aimed to compare the efficacy of vaginal micronised progesterone tablets and 8% vaginal progesterone gel for LPS using real-world data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study included 459 <i>in vitro</i> fertilisation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles performed at a university hospital from 2005 to 2019. All cycles were followed by fresh day 3 embryo transfer (ET). Either progesterone tablets or gel was used for LPS. To control the conditional probability of progesterone tablets or gel use, doubly robust inverse probability weighting composed of inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting (IPTW) and regression adjustment (RA). IPTW was performed based on the covariate balancing propensity score (CBPS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Progesterone tablets were administered in 65 cycles, and progesterone gel was administered in 394 cycles. Women who used progesterone tablets were more likely to be older (36 vs. 34 years), have primary infertility (78.5% vs. 61.4%), use gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (60.0% vs. 43.2%), and have fewer retrieved oocytes (seven vs. nine) and transferred embryos (two vs. three) than participants who used progesterone gel. After IPTW-CBPS and RA analysis for the above covariates, the adjusted odds for clinical pregnancy in women who used progesterone tablets were 1.10 times compared with women who used progesterone gel; however, the 95% confidence interval did not reach statistical significance (0.96-1.26).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Clinical pregnancy was comparable between vaginal micronised progesterone tablets and vaginal progesterone gel for LPS in fresh day 3 ET cycles.</p>","PeriodicalId":16627,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","volume":"45 1","pages":"2436518"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01443615.2024.2436518","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Luteal phase support (LPS) with progesterone is a generally accepted practice after controlled ovarian stimulation, although the best protocols for LPS have been debated. We aimed to compare the efficacy of vaginal micronised progesterone tablets and 8% vaginal progesterone gel for LPS using real-world data.
Methods: This retrospective study included 459 in vitro fertilisation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles performed at a university hospital from 2005 to 2019. All cycles were followed by fresh day 3 embryo transfer (ET). Either progesterone tablets or gel was used for LPS. To control the conditional probability of progesterone tablets or gel use, doubly robust inverse probability weighting composed of inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting (IPTW) and regression adjustment (RA). IPTW was performed based on the covariate balancing propensity score (CBPS).
Results: Progesterone tablets were administered in 65 cycles, and progesterone gel was administered in 394 cycles. Women who used progesterone tablets were more likely to be older (36 vs. 34 years), have primary infertility (78.5% vs. 61.4%), use gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (60.0% vs. 43.2%), and have fewer retrieved oocytes (seven vs. nine) and transferred embryos (two vs. three) than participants who used progesterone gel. After IPTW-CBPS and RA analysis for the above covariates, the adjusted odds for clinical pregnancy in women who used progesterone tablets were 1.10 times compared with women who used progesterone gel; however, the 95% confidence interval did not reach statistical significance (0.96-1.26).
Conclusions: Clinical pregnancy was comparable between vaginal micronised progesterone tablets and vaginal progesterone gel for LPS in fresh day 3 ET cycles.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology represents an established forum for the entire field of obstetrics and gynaecology, publishing a broad range of original, peer-reviewed papers, from scientific and clinical research to reviews relevant to practice. It also includes occasional supplements on clinical symposia. The journal is read widely by trainees in our specialty and we acknowledge a major role in education in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Past and present editors have recognized the difficulties that junior doctors encounter in achieving their first publications and spend time advising authors during their initial attempts at submission. The journal continues to attract a world-wide readership thanks to the emphasis on practical applicability and its excellent record of drawing on an international base of authors.