Combined Progesterone Administration Versus Single-Route Administration for Luteal Phase Support in IVF: A Narrative Review of Current Evidence.

Q2 Medicine
Vasiliki Dourou, Georgios Valsamakis, Olga Triantafyllidou, Dimitrios Tourlakis, Panagiotis Vakas, Nikolaos Vlahos
{"title":"Combined Progesterone Administration Versus Single-Route Administration for Luteal Phase Support in IVF: A Narrative Review of Current Evidence.","authors":"Vasiliki Dourou, Georgios Valsamakis, Olga Triantafyllidou, Dimitrios Tourlakis, Panagiotis Vakas, Nikolaos Vlahos","doi":"10.18502/jri.v27i1.22114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Luteal phase support (LPS) with progesterone is essential for successful implantation and early pregnancy maintenance in IVF cycles. Although various administration routes exist (oral, vaginal, intramuscular, subcutaneous), the comparative effectiveness of combined (dual or triple) versus single-route progesterone regimens remains uncertain due to limited high-quality randomized controlled trials.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A narrative review was conducted to evaluate studies comparing pregnancy outcomes in IVF cycles using combined versus single-route progesterone administration for LPS. A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify retrospective, prospective, and randomized controlled studies published in peer-reviewed journals. Data regarding clinical pregnancy, live birth, miscarriage, and implantation rates were collected and synthesized narratively due to heterogeneity among included studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most studies did not demonstrate statistically significant differences in outcomes between single-route and combined progesterone regimens, particularly when dydrogesterone was included. However, certain combinations, especially those involving oral dydrogesterone alongside vaginal or intramuscular progesterone, were associated with improved live birth and clinical pregnancy rates. Despite these encouraging findings, the lack of adequately powered RCTs and the methodological variability among studies limit the generalizability of the results.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While single-route progesterone administration remains effective for luteal phase support in IVF cycles, emerging evidence suggests that individualized combined regimens may enhance pregnancy outcomes. The physiological rationale for combined administration, offering both systemic and local endometrial support, is compelling. Further well-designed randomized controlled trials with standardized protocols are necessary to establish evidence-based guidelines for optimal LPS.</p>","PeriodicalId":38826,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Reproduction and Infertility","volume":"27 1","pages":"3-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13498711/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Reproduction and Infertility","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18502/jri.v27i1.22114","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Luteal phase support (LPS) with progesterone is essential for successful implantation and early pregnancy maintenance in IVF cycles. Although various administration routes exist (oral, vaginal, intramuscular, subcutaneous), the comparative effectiveness of combined (dual or triple) versus single-route progesterone regimens remains uncertain due to limited high-quality randomized controlled trials.

Methods: A narrative review was conducted to evaluate studies comparing pregnancy outcomes in IVF cycles using combined versus single-route progesterone administration for LPS. A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify retrospective, prospective, and randomized controlled studies published in peer-reviewed journals. Data regarding clinical pregnancy, live birth, miscarriage, and implantation rates were collected and synthesized narratively due to heterogeneity among included studies.

Results: Most studies did not demonstrate statistically significant differences in outcomes between single-route and combined progesterone regimens, particularly when dydrogesterone was included. However, certain combinations, especially those involving oral dydrogesterone alongside vaginal or intramuscular progesterone, were associated with improved live birth and clinical pregnancy rates. Despite these encouraging findings, the lack of adequately powered RCTs and the methodological variability among studies limit the generalizability of the results.

Conclusion: While single-route progesterone administration remains effective for luteal phase support in IVF cycles, emerging evidence suggests that individualized combined regimens may enhance pregnancy outcomes. The physiological rationale for combined administration, offering both systemic and local endometrial support, is compelling. Further well-designed randomized controlled trials with standardized protocols are necessary to establish evidence-based guidelines for optimal LPS.

联合黄体酮给药与单途径给药在体外受精黄体期支持:当前证据的叙述性回顾。
背景:黄体期支持(LPS)与黄体酮是必不可少的成功着床和早期妊娠维持在IVF周期。尽管存在多种给药途径(口服,阴道,肌肉注射,皮下注射),但由于有限的高质量随机对照试验,联合(双或三联)与单路黄体酮方案的比较有效性仍不确定。方法:对比较体外受精周期中使用联合孕酮和单途径孕酮治疗LPS的妊娠结局的研究进行了叙述性回顾。我们进行了全面的文献检索,以确定发表在同行评审期刊上的回顾性、前瞻性和随机对照研究。由于纳入研究的异质性,我们收集并综合了临床妊娠、活产、流产和着床率的数据。结果:大多数研究没有显示单途径和联合孕酮方案之间的结果有统计学上的显著差异,特别是当包括地屈孕酮时。然而,某些组合,特别是口服地屈孕酮与阴道或肌肉注射孕酮的组合,与提高活产率和临床妊娠率有关。尽管有这些令人鼓舞的发现,但缺乏足够有力的随机对照试验和研究方法的可变性限制了结果的普遍性。结论:在体外受精周期中,单路黄体酮给药对黄体期支持仍然有效,但新的证据表明,个体化联合方案可能会提高妊娠结局。提供全身和局部子宫内膜支持的联合给药的生理原理是令人信服的。需要进一步设计良好的随机对照试验和标准化方案,以建立最佳LPS的循证指南。
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
Journal of Reproduction and Infertility
Journal of Reproduction and Infertility Medicine-Reproductive Medicine
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
44
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书