Azargoon Azam, Joorabloo Gohar, Mirmohammadkhani Majid
Abnormal Uterine Bleeding Research Center, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran.
Department of Infertility, Amir-Al-Momenin Hospital, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran.
J Reprod Infertil. 2022 Jan-Mar;23(1):33-38. doi: 10.18502/jri.v23i1.8450.
Different progesterone doses and routes are used for luteal phase support in stimulated intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles, but the optimal supplementation scheme has not yet been determined. Therefore, our aim was to compare the administration of two different doses of vaginal progesterone with two doses of intramuscular (IM) progesterone for luteal phase support in patients undergoing IUI cycles.
In this randomized clinical trial, 312 women with unexplained or malefactor infertility intending to start IUI cycles between April 2015 and January 2018 were included. They were randomized into four groups (n=78/each) including group 1 who received IM progesterone in oil (25 daily), group 2 who received IM progesterone in oil (50 daily), group 3 who received progesterone suppository (400 daily), and group 4 who received progesterone suppository (800 daily; 400 twice daily). The primary outcome was the clinical pregnancy rate. The ongoing pregnancy rate, abortion rate, and patients' satisfaction, and convenience the secondary outcomes.
In our study, the overall clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates per cycle with COS and IUI were 16.02% and 12.8%, respectively. There were no significant differences in clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, and abortion rates among groups (p=0.84). The overall patients' satisfaction and convenience was significantly higher in the vaginal progesterone suppository groups than the IM progesterone groups (p=0.001).
The results of this study showed that vaginal progesterone administration provides a more easy-to-use and convenient method than IM progesterone administration for luteal phase support in IUI cycles with comparable pregnancy rates.
在促排卵宫腔内人工授精(IUI)周期中,不同剂量和途径的黄体酮用于黄体期支持,但最佳补充方案尚未确定。因此,我们的目的是比较两种不同剂量的阴道用黄体酮与两种剂量的肌肉注射(IM)黄体酮在接受IUI周期的患者中进行黄体期支持的效果。
在这项随机临床试验中,纳入了2015年4月至2018年1月期间打算开始IUI周期的312名不明原因或男方因素不孕的女性。她们被随机分为四组(每组n = 78),包括第1组接受油剂肌肉注射黄体酮(每日25 ),第2组接受油剂肌肉注射黄体酮(每日50 ),第3组接受黄体酮栓剂(每日400 ),第4组接受黄体酮栓剂(每日800 ;每日两次,每次400 )。主要结局是临床妊娠率。持续妊娠率、流产率、患者满意度和便利性为次要结局。
在我们的研究中,促排卵和IUI每个周期的总体临床妊娠率和持续妊娠率分别为16.02%和12.8%。各组之间的临床妊娠率、持续妊娠率和流产率无显著差异(p = 0.84)。阴道用黄体酮栓剂组患者的总体满意度和便利性显著高于肌肉注射黄体酮组(p = 0.001)。
本研究结果表明,在妊娠率相当的IUI周期中,阴道给予黄体酮比肌肉注射黄体酮提供了一种更易于使用和方便的黄体期支持方法。