Systematic review of the clinical efficacy of vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in assisted reproductive technology cycles.

Article Details

Citation
Copy to clipboard

Child T, Leonard SA, Evans JS, Lass A

Systematic review of the clinical efficacy of vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in assisted reproductive technology cycles.

Reprod Biomed Online. 2018 Jun;36(6):630-645. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.02.001. Epub 2018 Feb 22.

PubMed ID
29550390 [ View in PubMed
]
Abstract

Vaginal progesterone via capsule, gel or tablet is the most common route for luteal phase support (LPS) in Europe. Although there is a wealth of data comparing products used at other stages of assisted reproductive technology cycles, there is a lack of systematically identified evidence comparing the wide range of vaginal progesterone products. This systematic review queried the MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases on 30 June 2016 to identify head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy or safety of vaginal progesterone preparations (Crinone, Cyclogest, Lutigest or Utrogestan Vaginal) for LPS in assisted reproductive technology cycles. Of 1914 results, 18 RCTs were included. No significant difference in clinical pregnancy rate was identified in comparisons of Utrogestan Vaginal with Crinone. Utrogestan Vaginal and Lutigest were non-inferior to Crinone in ongoing pregnancy rate comparisons. Differences in patient-reported perineal irritation with Crinone and Lutigest were not significantly different to Cyclogest. In studies comparing varying timing or dosage of Utrogestan Vaginal or Crinone, no significant differences were observed. These results suggest Crinone, Cyclogest, Lutigest and Utrogestan Vaginal represent equally safe and effective choices of vaginal progesterone for LPS in assisted reproductive technology cycles. Future quantitative analyses could provide further support for these findings.

DrugBank Data that Cites this Article

Drugs