Fertility and sterility · 2025
Sublingual progesterone lozenges are a viable alternative to intramuscular progesterone-in-oil for programmed frozen embryo transfer cycles.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mandelbaum Rachel S, Raj-Derouin Natasha, Erickson Katherine, Stanczyk Frank Z, Sriprasert Intira, Guner Joie Z, Quinn Molly M, Kolb Bradford, Wilcox John G, Paulson Richard J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare pregnancy outcomes and serum progesterone levels between women who took sublingual (SL) progesterone lozenges vs. intramuscular (IM) administration progesterone-in-oil for endometrial preparation and luteal support in programmed frozen embryo transfer (pFET) cycles.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
SUBJECTS: All patients who underwent pFET of a single euploid good-quality blastocyst between January 2018 and April 2023.
EXPOSURE: Patients received either compounded SL lozenges containing 200 mg micronized progesterone three times per day or 50 mg progesterone-in-oil daily. Both groups also took 100 mg vaginal micronized progesterone three times per day.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes included clinical pregnancy (human chorionic gonadotropin ≥ 5 mIU/mL), ongoing pregnancy (pregnancy progressing past 8 weeks), live birth, and miscarriage. Secondary outcomes included progesterone levels at or one day before embryo transfer and at the time of the first pregnancy test.
RESULTS: A total of 1,951 pFET cycles were included, of whom 1,030 (52.8%) patients received IM progesterone and 921 (47.2%)-SL progesterone. There were no significant differences between the IM and SL groups, respectively, in clinical pregnancy (69.5% vs. 74.4%, odds ratio [OR]: 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61-1.09), ongoing pregnancy (56.1% vs. 61.1%, OR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.60-1.01), live birth (50.1% vs. 57.0%, OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.64-1.14), or miscarriage (25.1% vs. 24.1%, OR: 1.24, 95% CI: 0.87-1.79) after controlling for age, race, estrogen preparation, endometrial thickness, physician performing the transfer, and number of prior embryo transfers. In the IM progesterone group, mean serum progesterone levels were significantly higher at the time of embryo transfer (41.6 ± 10.9 vs. 30.5 ± 15.7 ng/mL) and at first serum human chorionic gonadotropin measurement (36.5 ± 11.5 vs. 29.4 ± 15.0 ng/mL) compared with the SL group.
CONCLUSION: Sublingual progesterone is a viable alternative to IM progesterone for pFET cycles that can minimize injection burden and likely improve patient satisfaction without compromising pregnancy outcomes. Progesterone levels, although slightly lower than the IM route, are in an acceptable range for luteal support.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
SUBJECTS: All patients who underwent pFET of a single euploid good-quality blastocyst between January 2018 and April 2023.
EXPOSURE: Patients received either compounded SL lozenges containing 200 mg micronized progesterone three times per day or 50 mg progesterone-in-oil daily. Both groups also took 100 mg vaginal micronized progesterone three times per day.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes included clinical pregnancy (human chorionic gonadotropin ≥ 5 mIU/mL), ongoing pregnancy (pregnancy progressing past 8 weeks), live birth, and miscarriage. Secondary outcomes included progesterone levels at or one day before embryo transfer and at the time of the first pregnancy test.
RESULTS: A total of 1,951 pFET cycles were included, of whom 1,030 (52.8%) patients received IM progesterone and 921 (47.2%)-SL progesterone. There were no significant differences between the IM and SL groups, respectively, in clinical pregnancy (69.5% vs. 74.4%, odds ratio [OR]: 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61-1.09), ongoing pregnancy (56.1% vs. 61.1%, OR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.60-1.01), live birth (50.1% vs. 57.0%, OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.64-1.14), or miscarriage (25.1% vs. 24.1%, OR: 1.24, 95% CI: 0.87-1.79) after controlling for age, race, estrogen preparation, endometrial thickness, physician performing the transfer, and number of prior embryo transfers. In the IM progesterone group, mean serum progesterone levels were significantly higher at the time of embryo transfer (41.6 ± 10.9 vs. 30.5 ± 15.7 ng/mL) and at first serum human chorionic gonadotropin measurement (36.5 ± 11.5 vs. 29.4 ± 15.0 ng/mL) compared with the SL group.
CONCLUSION: Sublingual progesterone is a viable alternative to IM progesterone for pFET cycles that can minimize injection burden and likely improve patient satisfaction without compromising pregnancy outcomes. Progesterone levels, although slightly lower than the IM route, are in an acceptable range for luteal support.