Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

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.

Original publication

DOI

10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.02.001

Type

Conference paper

Publication Date

22/02/2018

Keywords

Assisted reproductive technology, Luteal phase support, Systematic review, Vaginal progesterone