Skip to main content
Download PDF

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

BMC Women's Health volume 24, Article number: 481 (2024) Cite this article

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.

Peer Review reports

Background

Pregnancy rates after Frozen Embryo Transfer (FET) can be affected by numerous factors, including the patient’s age, endometrial thickness and pattern, the quality and growth stage of the embryo, and the method of freezing [1,2,3,4]. An additional factor that can strongly support pregnancy is the administration of progesterone as luteal phase support, which is a routine part of In-vitro Fertilization (IVF) treatment more broadly [5]. The use of progesterone has been associated with higher rates of pregnancy during fertility treatments, as well as with higher rates of live birth, as compared to placebo treatments [6]. However, progesterone can be administered by oral, vaginal, subcutaneous, and intramuscular methods, various studies have shown varying results concerning the efficacy of these different prescription approaches, which have been published by various researchers [7,8,9,10,11].

The effectiveness of oral progesterone is often limited by poor bioavailability due to first-pass hepatic metabolism [12]. On the other hand, progesterone injections are generally considered more effective for pregnancy support, but they are associated with complications such as injection site pain, abscess formation, and inflammatory reactions [13]. Moreover, vaginal progesterone suppositories provide similar pregnancy benefits with fewer side effects and greater ease of use, making them a preferred option for many patients [14,15,16]. Although studies comparing injectable and vaginal progesterone have produced mixed results regarding their effectiveness in inducing secretory endometrial transformation, increasing evidence supports the use of vaginal progesterone [13]. Despite lower serum progesterone levels compared to injectable forms, vaginal administration effectively induces endometrial transformation, likely due to the first uterine pass effect, which enhances uterine bioavailability and minimizes systemic side effects [13]. However, the pharmacokinetics of vaginal progesterone can vary significantly depending on the formulation used [13].

While progesterone administration has demonstrated potential in optimizing luteal-phase support during FET, significant uncertainty persists regarding the optimal route of administration. Existing studies are heterogeneous, and a consensus has yet to be reached [17]. Furthermore, no study to date has directly compared the outcomes of three distinct methods of progesterone administration for luteal-phase support in FET patients. To address this gap, the present study aimed to provide a comprehensive evaluation of clinical outcomes, adverse events, and patient satisfaction associated with three progesterone delivery routes—vaginal, subcutaneous, and intramuscular. The goal is to offer valuable insights into the advantages and disadvantages of each method to better inform clinical practice and guide individualized treatment decisions.

Methods

Study design and ethical considerations

In this three-armed randomized controlled trial, all consecutive eligible patients with infertility who were candidates for IVF were recruited and followed between December 2020 and March 2022. This study was conducted at the Vali-e-Asr infertility clinic at Imam Khomeini Hospital complex, affiliated with the Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. The trial protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Tehran University of Medical Sciences, with the ethical code of IR.TUMS.VCR.REC.1398.1024, and all stages of the study were conducted strictly adhering to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki [18]. Following a comprehensive presentation of the trial and its specifics informed verbal and written consent was secured from all patients. Participants were apprised of their prerogative to withdraw from the trial at any point without detriment to their therapy or their rapport with healthcare providers.

The trial 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, accessible at https://irct.behdasht.gov.ir/trial/45786. We present this paper in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement [19].

Participants

This trial included Iranian infertile women aged 18–42 years who were eligible for IVF with the potential for FET. Inclusion criteria required participants to have fewer than three previous embryo transfers, baseline follicle-stimulating hormone levels below 15 mIU/mL, a Body Mass Index (BMI) under 30 kg/m2, and no reported uterine abnormalities or azoospermia in their male partners. Participants were excluded if they declined to participate, lacked proficiency in the Persian language, or had a history of severe endometriosis, submucosal fibroids, uncontrolled adrenal or thyroid disorders, thromboembolic conditions, hydrosalpinx, recurrent miscarriage, or recurrent implantation failure in previous IVF cycles. Additionally, patients who had undergone preimplantation genetic diagnosis to assess embryo quality were excluded from the study. Lastly, patients were excluded if they failed to participate in follow-up assessments after receiving the prescribed treatments.

Randomization and blinding

Patients were randomly assigned to one of the three treatment groups using block randomization (3 alleles, block size of 9), ensuring balanced allocation. This study employed a single-blind design, where the individual responsible for assigning patients to the study groups was blinded to the patients' clinical conditions and preferences. Opaque, sealed envelopes containing the treatment assignments—vaginal suppository, subcutaneous, or intramuscular progesterone—were prepared by a biostatistician at the center. To assign patients, a nurse unaffiliated with the study selected an envelope for each participant. Once opened, the patient’s allocation to one of the three progesterone administration routes was confirmed.

Intervention

On the second day of each participant's menstrual cycle, all three groups of participants received 6 mg of oral estradiol valerate daily (2 mg tablets, Abu Reihan Company, Iran). After six days, if the endometrium was not appropriate, an additional 2 mg of estradiol valerate was given to the dosage and monitoring continued. Progesterone was administered to estradiol valerate therapy after the endometrial thickness reached 8 mm, as assessed by vaginal ultrasound. Following this cycle, FET was canceled if the endometrium did not meet the required thickness of 8 mm or lacked acceptable transparency. Embryo transfer was conducted four days after the first dose of progesterone for all participants. According to the executive procedure, a total of two embryos were transferred for each participant. This was done in the embryo cleavage stage under vaginal sonography guidance using two good quality embryos (grades A, AB, or B), transferred via Cook catheter (Cook®, Bloomington, IN, USA). Embryo transfer was followed by 8 weeks of progesterone medication in the absence of an ectopic pregnancy. The progesterone therapy protocols encompassed vaginal suppository (400 mg twice daily; Cyclogest, Barnstaple UK), subcutaneous (25 mg daily; Prolutex, IBSA Switzerland), or intramuscular (50 mg daily; Abu Reihan Company, Iran).

Study measures and outcomes

At the baseline, data regarding the following characteristics were collected from each patient using a predefined checklist: age, height, body weight, infertility duration, infertility type, and cause, history of receiving IVF treatment, and history of previous abortions.

The primary outcomes of this study were chemical and clinical pregnancy rates per embryo transfer cycle. Chemical pregnancy was considered positive when beta-human Chorionic Gonadotropin (beta-hCG) levels exceeded 50 IU/mL two weeks after the embryo transfer. The clinical pregnancy was confirmed if one or more gestational sacs were identified by ultrasound four weeks post-transfer in participants with a positive chemical pregnancy.

Secondary outcomes included multiple pregnancy rates (implantation of more than one embryo), ectopic pregnancy (implantation outside the uterus), and spontaneous abortion (pregnancy loss after ultrasound confirmation) per embryo transfer cycle.

Moreover, adverse effects associated with progesterone administration were documented as exploratory outcomes in our study. These adverse effects included local reactions at the injection site and side effects from vaginal suppositories, such as irritation, inflammation, itching, discharge, and bleeding. Additionally, participant satisfaction with progesterone therapy was assessed 12 weeks post-embryo transfer using a brief Likert-scale survey, which categorized satisfaction into three levels: dissatisfied, partially satisfied, and completely satisfied.

Sample size calculation

The sample size calculation was performed using G*Power 3.1.9.2 software. Reported rates of chemical pregnancy (primary outcome) following luteal-phase support with vaginal, subcutaneous, and intramuscular progesterone during FET were collected at 0.4, 0.6, and 0.8, respectively [20, 21]. Fisher’s exact test was used for pairwise comparisons between the study groups, with a two-tailed significance level (alpha) set at 0.05 and a statistical power of 80%, using an allocation ratio of 1:1. The required sample sizes per arm were estimated to be 102 for the vaginal vs. subcutaneous comparison, 40 for the vaginal vs. intramuscular comparison, and 90 for the subcutaneous vs. intramuscular comparison. To ensure a conservative estimate, the largest sample size (102 per arm) was selected. By maintaining a 1:1:1 allocation ratio, the final calculated total sample size was 306 participants.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS, version 25.0, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Categorical data were reported as frequencies and percentages, while continuous data were expressed as means with standard deviations. To compare the prevalence of categorical variables across the three study groups, the Chi-square test was employed. Prior to comparing the means of continuous variables, the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was conducted to assess normality. When the data followed a normal distribution, a one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to compare group means. If the data did not follow a normal distribution, the Kruskal–Wallis test was applied. A significance level of p < 0.05 was set for all analyses.

Additionally, univariate binary logistic regression was used to assess the predictive ability of various variables, including treatment groups, for achieving chemical and clinical pregnancy, with the calculation of odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), along with sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy measures. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were subsequently performed to determine the independent predictive value of each variable for chemical and clinical pregnancy attainment. A p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant in all regression analyses.

Results

Baseline characteristics of the participants

Three hundred and seventy-six patients were screened for eligibility from December 2020 to March 2022, 310 of whom were eligible to be included in this trial. Subsequently, participants were randomly allocated to the vaginal suppository (n = 100), subcutaneous (n = 102), and intramuscular (n = 108) groups. None of the study participants dropped out of the study during the follow-up periods (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

The process of screening and recruitment of the study participants, based on the CONSORT 2010 flow diagram

Full size image

There were no statistically significant differences between the three study groups in terms of their age, infertility duration, history of IVF, or history of previous abortions (p > 0.05). However, there were significant differences between them in terms of their mean BMI (p < 0.001), infertility types (p = 0.005), cause of infertility (p = 0.002), number of previous abortions (p = 0.042), and received IVF protocol (p = 0.014) (Table 1).

Table 1 Characteristics of the included patientsa
Full size table

Clinical outcomes

Our results indicated a significantly higher rate of chemical pregnancy per cycle in patients receiving intramuscular progesterone for luteal-phase support (41.7%) compared to those receiving vaginal (26.0%) and subcutaneous (27.5%) progesterone (p = 0.026). However, although the intramuscular group exhibited a higher rate of clinical pregnancies (32.4%) compared to the vaginal and subcutaneous groups (23.0% and 21.6%, respectively), this difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.148). Furthermore, no significant differences were observed between the groups regarding spontaneous abortions (p = 0.111), multiple pregnancies (p = 0.555), or ectopic pregnancies (no cases of ectopic pregnancy were reported in any of the three treatment groups) (Table 2).

Table 2 Clinical outcomes and side effects of the three studied groups of the triala
Full size table

Univariate logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the predictive ability of various factors for chemical and clinical pregnancy achievement following FET. The variables analyzed included age, BMI, infertility duration, infertility type, cause of infertility, history of IVF, previous abortion, received treatment protocol (agonist vs, antagonist), and progesterone administration methods (vaginal suppository, subcutaneous, and intramuscular). Our results indicated that only the method of progesterone administration significantly predicted chemical pregnancy attainment (OR = 1.447 [95% CI: 1.074–1.950]; p = 0.015). This association remained significant after adjusting for the effects of the other variables in the multivariate analysis (OR = 1.468 [95% CI: 1.078–1.999]; p = 0.015). This suggests that intramuscular progesterone administration is linked to higher rates of chemical pregnancy following FET compared to vaginal and subcutaneous routes. However, none of the examined variables, including the progesterone administration method, were significant predictors of clinical pregnancy achievement in either univariate or multivariate logistic regression analyses (p > 0.05) (Table 3).

Table 3 Findings of the univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis on the potential predictive abilities of variables for the chemical and clinical pregnancy attainments
Full size table

Side effects

Patients in the intramuscular group reported a significantly higher rate of complications (p < 0.001), which primarily consisted of pain and swelling at the injection site (75.0% of the participants in this group reported pain and swelling). Other reported side effects encompassed vaginal discharge (5.6%), vaginal bleeding (3.7%), in the intramuscular group, skin irritation (8.8%), vaginal bleeding (4.9%), and perineal irritation (1.0%) in the subcutaneous group, and vaginal discharge (6.0%), vaginal bleeding (4.0%), rectum itching (4.0%), and perineal irritation (3.0%) in the vaginal suppository group (Table 2).

Satisfaction of treatment

Based on our survey, there was a significant difference in the patient-reported satisfaction level with the received treatment (p < 0.001), with the intramuscular group demonstrating a substantially lower complete satisfaction compared to the vaginal and subcutaneous groups (0.0%, 73.0%, and 71.6%, respectively). These findings highlight that while the intramuscular method of progesterone administration is associated with higher chemical pregnancy rates, given the significantly higher complication rates (specifically the pain and swelling in the injection site) these patients are less satisfied with their treatment than those receiving the vaginal or subcutaneous progesterone for the least-phase support.

Discussion

Key findings

This study demonstrated that intramuscular administration of progesterone for luteal-phase support is associated with higher chemical pregnancy rates two weeks post-embryo transfer compared to vaginal or subcutaneous routes. Although the clinical pregnancy rate was also higher in the intramuscular group, this difference did not reach statistical significance. These findings suggest that the route of progesterone administration may have a greater impact on the implantation process than on the maintenance of pregnancy. Notably, patient-perceived satisfaction with treatment was significantly lower in the intramuscular group than in the vaginal and subcutaneous groups, likely due to the higher incidence of adverse effects and discomfort associated with intramuscular administration.

Comparison of three methods of progesterone administration for luteal-phase support

Previous research has extensively compared the clinical outcomes of vaginal, subcutaneous, and intramuscular routes of progesterone administration for luteal-phase support in patients undergoing IVF, typically through pairwise analyses [21,22,23]. However, to the best of our knowledge, our study is the first to conduct a direct and comprehensive comparison of clinical outcomes and adverse events across all three methods simultaneously. Our findings indicate that, ultimately, the clinical pregnancy rates are comparable among these methods. However, the incidence of adverse events is significantly higher with the intramuscular route, leading to notably lower patient satisfaction compared to the vaginal and subcutaneous routes.

Intramuscular administration of progesterone results in significantly higher serum progesterone levels compared to other methods, but this does not necessarily improve outcomes for embryo transfers [24]. Both intramuscular and vaginal progesterone methods show similar patterns of sub-endometrial contractions and comparable rates of maintaining clinical pregnancies after embryo transfers [24]. Despite lower serum progesterone levels with vaginal administration, it effectively induces endometrial transformation, likely due to the first uterine pass effect that increases local bioavailability while reducing systemic side effects [13]. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials on this topic highlighted comparable live birth rates following both vaginal and intramuscular progesterone administration during luteal-phase support [25]. Additionally, most recent studies have suggested that vaginal and intramuscular progesterone administration methods yield similar results in terms of implantation rates, chemical pregnancy rates, clinical pregnancy rates, ongoing pregnancy rates, live birth rates, and spontaneous abortion rates [25,26,27,28]. Moreover, prior research has consistently pointed to a significantly higher level of patient satisfaction among those receiving vaginal suppositories of progesterone compared to those enduring daily intramuscular injections of painful oily progesterone ampules [25, 29].

Currently, vaginal progesterone is the most common approach in IVF practice, largely due to its ease of administration and relatively low incidence of complications [30, 31]. This perspective was strongly supported in the current study, where participants reported a much lower rate of complications and higher satisfaction with vaginal application compared to intramuscular injection. However, it is important to note that some studies have reported higher implantation, chemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, and live birth rates in patients receiving intramuscular progesterone compared to those using vaginal gel [32, 33]. Therefore, while the lower side effects and higher patient satisfaction associated with vaginal treatment are well-established, there still remains controversy regarding its advantages in achieving different pregnancy outcomes. This underscores the need for further research in this area.

A newer method for progesterone delivery during luteal-phase support is subcutaneous injection [34]. Our study highlighted that subcutaneous progesterone results in comparable chemical and clinical pregnancy rates, as well as a similar rate of adverse events, compared to the vaginal route. Previous research has demonstrated comparable bioavailability for both subcutaneous and intramuscular progesterone methods, with both being significantly greater than that of the vaginal route [35]. Most prior studies examining subcutaneous progesterone have used the vaginal route as the control group, and like our study, reported comparable pregnancy rates for both methods [23, 36]. Additionally, prior research generally indicates favorable acceptance of the subcutaneous route of progesterone administration among the patients [34]. Collectively, these results suggest that subcutaneous progesterone offers bioavailability similar to intramuscular methods and pregnancy rates comparable to the vaginal route while causing fewer adverse events than intramuscular injections. Thus, subcutaneous administration could be considered an effective option for progesterone delivery in luteal-phase support. However, its cost-effectiveness has not yet been well-established yet [34].

Oral progesterone: a new potential route for luteal-phase support

An emerging avenue for progesterone administration in luteal phase support during FET is oral administration. Recent studies have indicated comparable pregnancy rates following oral progesterone administration, demonstrating non-inferiority when compared to vaginal suppositories [37,38,39]. This suggests that despite the potential impact of primary hepatic metabolism on reducing progesterone bioavailability, oral progesterone could serve as an alternative treatment for patients who are unwilling or unable to use other routes. Consequently, further randomized controlled trials are essential in this domain to ascertain the precise efficacy of oral progesterone administration for luteal phase support.

Strengths and limitations

Despite the strengths of our study, including its relatively large sample size, comprehensive data collection on clinical outcomes, complications, and patient satisfaction following luteal-phase support, as well as the use of well-established statistical methods that allow for adjustments across multiple variables, certain limitations necessitate cautious interpretation of our findings.

First, our examination focused solely on the short-term effects of progesterone applications concerning chemical and clinical pregnancy outcomes and we did not manage to assess its impact on ongoing pregnancy outcomes, live birth rates, or neonatal outcomes, which are crucial factors that warrant examination in future FET studies before definitive practice recommendations can be established. Second, we did not investigate the influence of patients' serum progesterone levels on the clinical outcomes of progesterone therapy in luteal phase support. Third, the lack of an opportunity to conduct preimplantation genetic diagnosis tests on embryonic cells across a large sample necessitated the reliance on qualitative assessments of embryo quality for selection in our study, rather than on the transfer of confirmed euploid blastocysts. Lastly, the embryos were transferred to the uterus during the cleavage stage, a practice for which evidence suggests relatively lower success rates compared to transfer at the blastocyst stage [40]. This approach may also serve as a potential confounding factor in our findings. These circumstances underscore the need for future studies in this field to provide a better understanding of the precise effects of each progesterone administration method on the pregnancy outcomes of patients undergoing IVF.

Conclusions

The present study demonstrated that intramuscular progesterone for luteal-phase support resulted in superior chemical pregnancy rates compared to vaginal suppositories and subcutaneous administration. However, this advantage did not extend to clinical pregnancy rates, highlighting the need for further investigation into why the increase in chemical pregnancies did not translate into more clinical pregnancies and maintaining the pregnancy. Moreover, despite its effectiveness, the intramuscular route was associated with significantly higher adverse effects, including pain and swelling at the injection site, leading to lower patient satisfaction compared to vaginal and subcutaneous routes. This suggests that although intramuscular progesterone may offer better clinical outcomes, it is often not necessarily the patients’ preferred option due to discomfort. Consequently, optimizing the dosage and administration of progesterone via vaginal or subcutaneous routes could potentially enhance their efficacy while improving patient experience. Future research is essential to establish standardized guidelines for the optimal route and dosage of progesterone, tailored to patients' medical needs and preferences.

Availability of data and materials

Tehran University of Medical Sciences strictly adheres to policies that prohibit the sharing of data to safeguard patient confidentiality and comply with legal and ethical regulations. Requests for data may be directed to the respective ethics committees for consideration.

Abbreviations

ANOVA:

Analysis of Variance

beta-hCG:

beta-human Chorionic Gonadotropin

BMI:

Body Mass Index

CI:

Confidence Interval

CONSORT:

Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials

FET:

Frozen Embryo Transfer

IRB:

Institutional Review Board

IRCT:

Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials

IVF:

In-vitro Fertilization

OR:

Odds Ratio

SPSS:

Statistical Package of Social Science Software

WHO:

World Health Organization

References

  1. Hayashi N, Enatsu N, Iwasaki T, Otsuki J, Matsumoto Y, Kokeguchi S, et al. Predictive factors influencing pregnancy rate in frozen embryo transfer. Reprod Med Biol. 2020;19(2):182–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. López Regalado ML, Clavero A, Gonzalvo MC, Serrano M, Martínez L, Mozas J, et al. Cumulative live birth rate after two single frozen embryo transfers (eSFET) versus a double frozen embryo transfer (DFET) with cleavage stage embryos: a retrospective cohort study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31(12):1621–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Pouget O, Scalici E, Hoa-Ferrieres A, Deutsch-Bringer S, Gala A, Dechaud H, et al. Comparison of frozen embryo transfer outcomes at blastocyst stage according to freezing method and type of endometrial preparation. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2015;43(3):219–24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hantoushzadeh S, Poorabdoli M, Parsaei M, Zargarzadeh N, Masoumi M, Khotbesara SE, et al. Predicting the Outcomes of In Vitro Fertilization Using Baseline Maternal Serum Inflammatory Markers: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Am J Reprod Immunol. 2024;92(1):e13900.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Dashti S, Eftekhar M. Luteal-phase support in assisted reproductive technology: An ongoing challenge. Int J Reprod Biomed. 2021;19(9):761–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. van der Linden M, Buckingham K, Farquhar C, Kremer JA, Metwally M. Luteal phase support for assisted reproduction cycles. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2015;2015(7):009154.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Vaisbuch E, Leong M, Shoham Z. Progesterone support in IVF: is evidence-based medicine translated to clinical practice? A worldwide web-based survey. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012;25(2):139–45.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Fatemi HM, Popovic-Todorovic B, Papanikolaou E, Donoso P, Devroey P. An update of luteal phase support in stimulated IVF cycles. Hum Reprod Update. 2007;13(6):581–90.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Progesterone supplementation during the luteal phase and in early pregnancy in the treatment of infertility: an educational bulletin. Fertility and sterility. 2008;89(4):789–92.

  10. Mitwally MF, Diamond MP, Abuzeid M. Vaginal micronized progesterone versus intramuscular progesterone for luteal support in women undergoing in vitro fertilization–embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(2):554–69.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Miller CE, Zbella E, Webster BW, Doody KJ, Bush MR, Collins MG. Clinical comparison of ovarian stimulation and luteal support agents in patients undergoing GnRH antagonist IVF cycles. J Reprod Med. 2013;58(3–4):153–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Pritts E, Atwood A. Luteal phase support in infertility treatment: a meta-analysis of the randomized trials. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(9):2287–99.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Khandelwal M. Vaginal progesterone in risk reduction of preterm birth in women with short cervix in the midtrimester of pregnancy. Int J Women’s Health. 2012;4:481–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Choi SJ. Use of progesterone supplement therapy for prevention of preterm birth: review of literatures. Obstetrics & gynecology science. 2017;60(5):405–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Almohammadi A, Raveendran A, Black M, Maheshwari A. The optimal route of progesterone administration for luteal phase support in a frozen embryo transfer: a systematic review. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2023;308(2):341–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cuschieri S. The CONSORT statement. Saudi J Anaesth. 2019;13(Suppl 1):S27-s30.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Baker VL, Jones CA, Doody K, Foulk R, Yee B, Adamson GD, et al. A randomized, controlled trial comparing the efficacy and safety of aqueous subcutaneous progesterone with vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support of in vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(10):2212–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Turgut EN, Boynukalın FK, Gültomruk M, Yarkıner Z, Bahçeci M. Comparison of intramuscular versus subcutaneous aqueous progesterone for luteal phase support in artificially prepared frozen embryo transfer cycles. Turk J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;17(4):240–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Casper RF. Luteal phase support for frozen embryo transfer cycles: intramuscular or vaginal progesterone? Fertil Steril. 2014;101(3):627–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Schütt M, Nguyen TD, Kalff-Suske M, Wagner U, Macharey G, Ziller V. Subcutaneous progesterone versus vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization: A retrospective analysis from daily clinical practice. Clin Exp Reprod Med. 2021;48(3):262–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Hershko Klement A, Samara N, Weintraub A, Mitri F, Bentov Y, Chang P, et al. Intramuscular versus Vaginal Progesterone Administration in Medicated Frozen Embryo Transfer Cycles: A Randomized Clinical Trial Assessing Sub-Endometrial Contractions. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2018;83(1):40–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Abdelhakim AM, Abd-ElGawad M, Hussein RS, Abbas AM. Vaginal versus intramuscular progesterone for luteal phase support in assisted reproductive techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2020;36(5):389–97.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Azargoon A, Joorabloo G, Mirmohammadkhani M. Luteal Phase Support in Intrauterine Insemination Cycles: A Randomized Clinical Trial of Vaginal Versus Intramuscular Progesterone Administration. J Reprod Infertil. 2022;23(1):33–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. White J, Hickey J, Dufton M, Sandila N, Ripley M. Retrospective Review of Reproductive Outcomes Comparing Vaginal Progesterone to Intramuscular Progesterone as Luteal Support in Frozen Embryo Transfer Cycles. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2022;44(7):791–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Bakkensen JB, Racowsky C, Thomas AM, Lanes A, Hornstein MD. Intramuscular progesterone versus 8% Crinone vaginal gel for luteal phase support following blastocyst cryopreserved single embryo transfer: a retrospective cohort study. Fertil Res Pract. 2020;6:10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Yanushpolsky E, Hurwitz S, Greenberg L, Racowsky C, Hornstein M. Crinone vaginal gel is equally effective and better tolerated than intramuscular progesterone for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization–embryo transfer cycles: a prospective randomized study. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(7):2596–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Di Guardo F, Midassi H, Racca A, Tournaye H, De Vos M, Blockeel C. Luteal Phase Support in IVF: Comparison Between Evidence-Based Medicine and Real-Life Practices. Frontiers in Endocrinology. 2020;11:500.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Vaisbuch E, Leong M, Shoham Z. Progesterone support in IVF: is evidence-based medicine translated to clinical practice? A worldwide web-based survey. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012;25(2):139–45.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Damario MA, Goudas VT, Session DR, Hammitt DG, Dumesic DA. Crinone 8% vaginal progesterone gel results in lower embryonic implantation efficiency after in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 1999;72(5):830–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Propst AM, Hill JA, Ginsburg ES, Hurwitz S, Politch J, Yanushpolsky EH. A randomized study comparing Crinone 8% and intramuscular progesterone supplementation in in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril. 2001;76(6):1144–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Conforti A, Carbone L, Iorio GG, Cariati F, Bagnulo F, Marrone V, et al. Luteal Phase Support Using Subcutaneous Progesterone: A Systematic Review. Front Reprod Health. 2021;3:634813.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Tanguay M, Cometti B, Boudreault S. Comparative Bioavailability of Two Daily Subcutaneous Doses Versus a Single Dose of Intramuscular and Vaginal Progesterone Formulations in Healthy Postmenopausal Females. Clin Pharmacol Drug Dev. 2023;12(12):1221–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Aflatoonian A, Mohammadi B. Subcutaneous progesterone versus vaginal progesterone for luteal-phase support in frozen-thawed embryo transfer: A cross-sectional study. Int J Reprod Biomed. 2021;19(2):115–20.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Niu Y, Liu H, Li X, Zhao J, Hao G, Sun Y, et al. Oral micronized progesterone versus vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in fresh embryo transfer cycles: a multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority trial. Hum Reprod. 2023;38(Supplement_2):ii24–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Naghshineh E, Ghasemi Tehrani H, Sharifian F, Haghighat S. A Comparison of Oral Dydrogesterone with Vaginal Progesterone for Luteal-Phase Support in In vitro Fertilization: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Adv Biomed Res. 2023;12:132.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Atzmon Y, Aslih N, Estrada D, Bilgory A, Ellenbogen A, Shalom-Paz E. Comparable Outcomes Using Oral Dydrogesterone Vs Micronized Vaginal Progesterone in Frozen Embryo Transfer: a Retrospective Cohort Study. Reprod Sci. 2021;28(7):1874–81.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Glujovsky D, Retamar AMQ, Sedo CRA, Ciapponi A, Cornelisse S, Blake D. Cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2022;5(5):CD002118.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was carried out as the obstetrics and gynecology residency thesis of Dr. Sanaz Alizadeh. The authors would like to express their appreciation to the personnel of the Vali-e-Asr Infertility Clinic at the Tehran University of Medical Sciences, and to all of the patients who participated in this research.

Funding

There is no funding support for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Family Health Research Institute, Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Ensieh Shahrokh Tehraninejad, Sanaz Alizadeh & Azadeh Tarafdari

  2. Vali-e-Asr Reproductive Health Research Center, Family Health Research Institute, Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Ensieh Shahrokh Tehraninejad, Fedyeh Haghollahi & Azadeh Tarafdari

  3. Jacobi Medical Center, Albert Einstein University, Bronx, NY, 10461, USA

    Elham Azimi Nekoo

  4. Maternal Fetal Care Center, Boston Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

    Nikan Zargarzadeh

  5. Maternal, Fetal & Neonatal Research Center, Family Health Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran

    Mamak Shariat & Mohammadamin Parsaei

  6. Breastfeeding Research Center, Family Health Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran

    Mohammadamin Parsaei

Authors
  1. Ensieh Shahrokh Tehraninejad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sanaz Alizadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elham Azimi Nekoo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nikan Zargarzadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mamak Shariat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Fedyeh Haghollahi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Azadeh Tarafdari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Mohammadamin Parsaei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

EST participated in conceptualization, supervision, providing the study resources, and reviewing and editing the draft of the paper. SA participated in designing the study, data collection, data curation, reviewing, and editing the draft of the paper. EAN participated in data validation and writing the original draft of the paper. NZ participated in the data curation and statistical analysis and participated in writing the original draft of the paper. MS participated in designing the study, supervising, reviewing, and editing the draft of the paper. FH participated in data collection and writing the original draft of the paper. AT participated in conceptualization, designing the study, data collection, supervising, reviewing, and editing the draft of the paper. MP participated in data curation, data validation, statistical analysis, visualization, and writing the original draft of the paper. All of the authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Azadeh Tarafdari.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was conducted at the Vali-e-Asr infertility clinic at Imam Khomeini Hospital complex, affiliated with the Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. The trial protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Tehran University of Medical Sciences, with the ethical code of IR.TUMS.VCR.REC.1398.1024. All procedures adhered strictly to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. Before enrollment, a detailed verbal and written explanation of the study's aims was provided to the participants. Informed verbal and written consent were obtained from all participants, who were also assured that they could withdraw from the study at any time without affecting their infertility treatments.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tehraninejad, E.S., Alizadeh, S., Nekoo, E.A. et al. 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. BMC Women's Health 24, 481 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-024-03337-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-024-03337-z

Keywords

BMC Women's Health

ISSN: 1472-6874

Contact us