Subcutaneous progesterone versus vaginal progesterone for luteal-phase support in frozen-thawed embryo transfer: A cross-sectional study.

OA: gold CC-BY-NC-4.0
AI-generated deep summary by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-09-02 · read from full text

This cross-sectional study compared the safety and efficacy of low-dose subcutaneous progesterone (Prolutex 25 mg) versus vaginal progesterone for luteal-phase support in 77 women undergoing frozen-thawed embryo transfer. The researchers found no statistically significant difference in chemical or clinical pregnancy rates, implantation rates, or abortion rates between the two administration routes, indicating comparable reproductive outcomes. A major limitation noted by the authors was the small sample size due to restricted access to the drug in Iran and the retrospective nature of the data collection. Relevance to endometriosis: severe endometriosis was listed as an exclusion criterion for this study on assisted reproduction techniques, meaning the paper does not directly address endometriosis or adenomyosis pathology or treatment.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

BackgroundLuteal-phase support is a complex and controversial issue in the field of reproductive management.ObjectiveTo compare the safety and efficacy of low-dose subcutaneous progesterone with the vaginal progesterone for luteal-phase support in patients undergoing rozen-thawed embryo transfer.Materials and methodsIn this cross-sectional study, information related to 77 women that had frozen-thawed embryo transfer was reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups based on the route of progesterone administration used as a luteal-phase support. When the endometrial thickness reached ≥ 8 mm, in one group progesterone (Prolutex) 25 mg/ daily subcutaneous and in another group, vaginal progesterone (CyclogestⓇ) 400 mg twice or (EndometrinⓇ) 100 mg thrice daily, were administrated and continued until menstruation or in case of clinical pregnancy for 8 wk after the embryo transfer when the fetal heart activity was detected by ultrasonography.ResultsThe patient's characteristics were matched and there was no significant difference. The chemical and clinical pregnancy rate was higher in the vaginal progesterone group compared to the prolutex group, but statistically unnoticeable, (40% vs. 29.6%, p = 0.367) and (28% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.581), respectively.ConclusionThe findings of this study demonstrate that the new subcutaneous progesterone can be a good alternative for intramuscular progesterone in women that dislike and do not accept vaginal formulations as luteal-phase support in assisted reproductive technology.
Full text 12,096 characters · extracted from pmc-nxml · 2 sections · click to expand

Section

In this study, we attempted to show that the new SC progesterone formulation is comparable with vaginal progesterone for LPS, there was no statistically significant difference in pregnancy outcomes.

Coi Statement

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: pmc-nxml

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-09-06T09:34:12.023084+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-21T05:10:58.409756+00:00
License: CC-BY-NC-4.0