Patients' administration preferences: progesterone vaginal insert (Endometrin®) compared to intramuscular progesterone for Luteal phase support

Angeline N Beltsos, Mark D Sanchez, Kevin J Doody, Mark R Bush, Alice D Domar, Michael G Collins, Angeline N Beltsos, Mark D Sanchez, Kevin J Doody, Mark R Bush, Alice D Domar, Michael G Collins

Abstract

Background: Administration of exogenous progesterone for luteal phase support has become a standard of practice. Intramuscular (IM) injections of progesterone in oil (PIO) and vaginal administration of progesterone are the primary routes of administration. This report describes the administration preferences expressed by women with infertility that were given progesterone vaginal insert (PVI) or progesterone in oil injections (PIO) for luteal phase support during fresh IVF cycles.

Methods: A questionnaire to assess the tolerability, convenience, and ease of administration of PVI and PIO given for luteal phase support was completed by infertile women diagnosed with PCOS and planning to undergo IVF. The women participated in an open-label study of highly purified human menopausal gonadotropins (HP-hMG) compared with recombinant FSH (rFSH) given for stimulation of ovulation.

Results: Most women commented on the convenience and ease of administration of PVI, while a majority of women who administered IM PIO described experiencing pain. In addition, their partners often indicated that they had experienced at least some anxiety regarding the administration of PIO. The most distinguishing difference between PVI and PIO in this study was the overall patient preference for PVI. Despite the need to administer PVI either twice a day or three times a day, 82.6% of the patients in the PVI group found it "very" or "somewhat convenient" compared with 44.9% of women in the PIO group.

Conclusions: The results of this comprehensive, prospective patient survey, along with findings from other similar reports, suggest that PVI provides an easy-to-use and convenient method for providing the necessary luteal phase support for IVF cycles without the pain and inconvenience of daily IM PIO. Moreover, ongoing pregnancy rates with the well-tolerated PVI were as good as the pregnancy rates with PIO.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT00805935.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Convenience, ease, and overall patient satisfaction of administering/dosing progesterone vaginal insert (PVI) and progesterone in oil (PIO).

References

    1. Check JH. Luteal phase support in assisted reproductive technology treatment: Focus on endometrin(r) (progesterone) vaginal insert. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2009;5:403–407. doi: 10.2147/TCRM.S4192.
    1. DiLuigi AJ, Nulsen JC. Effects of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists and antagonists on luteal function. Curr Opin in Obstet ynecol. 2007;19:258–265. doi: 10.1097/GCO.0b013e3281338874.
    1. ASRM Practice Bulletin Progesterone supplementation during the luteal phase and in early pregnancy in the treatment of infertility: an educational bulletin. Fertil Steril. 2008;89:789–792. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.02.012.
    1. Fatemi HM, Popovic-Todorovic B, Papanikolaou E, Donoso P, Devroey P. An update of luteal phase support in stimulated IVF cycles. Hum Reprod Update. 2007;13:581–590. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmm021.
    1. Penzias AS, Alper MM. Luteal support with vaginal micronized progesterone gel in assisted reproduction. Reprod Biomed Online. 2003;6:287–295. doi: 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)61847-0.
    1. Zarutskie PW, Phillips JA. A meta-analysis of the route of administration of luteal phase support in assisted reproductive technology: vaginal versus intramuscular progesterone. Fert Steril. 2009;92:163–169. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.02.018.
    1. Chantilis SJ, Zeitoun KM, Patel SI, Johns DA, Madziar VA, McIntire DD. Use of crinone vaginal progesterone gel for luteal support in in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril. 1999;72:823–829. doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(99)00362-3.
    1. Dal Prato L, Bianchi L, Cattoli M, Tarozzi N, Flamigni C, Borini A. Vaginal gel versus intramuscular progesterone for luteal phase supplementation: a prospective randomized trial. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;16:361–367. doi: 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60597-4.
    1. Jobanputra K, Toner JP, Denoncourt R, Gibbons WE. Crinone 8% (90 mg) given once daily for progesterone replacement therapy in donor egg cycles. Fertil Steril. 1999;72:980–984. doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(99)00390-8.
    1. Kahraman S, Karagozoglu SH, Karlikaya G. The efficiency of progesterone vaginal gel versus intramuscular progesterone for luteal phase supplementation in gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist cycles: a prospective clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:761–763. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.10.004.
    1. Khan N, Richter KS, Newsome TL, Blake EJ, Yankov VI. Matched-samples comparison of intramuscular versus vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:2445–2450. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.03.072.
    1. Martin-Johnson M, Beltsos A, Robinson A, Gress N, Elgar C, Byers M. Luteal phase support with endometrin vs. Progesterone in oil in in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(Suppl):S459. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.07.457.
    1. Mitwally MF, Diamond MP, Abuzeid M. Vaginal micronized progesterone versus intramuscular progesterone for luteal support in women undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2010;93:554–569. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.02.047.
    1. Silverberg KM, Vaughn TC, Hansard LJ, Burger NZ, Minter T. Vaginal (crinone 8%) gel vs. Intramuscular progesterone in oil for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization: a large prospective trial. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:344–348. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.11.018.
    1. Yanushpolsky E, Hurwitz S, Greenberg L, Racowsky C, Hornstein M. Crinone vaginal gel is equally effective and better tolerated than intramuscular progesterone for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer cycles: a prospective randomized study. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:2596–2599. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.02.033.
    1. Beltsos AS, Sanchez M, Doody K, Bush M, Scobey J. Efficacy of vaginal progesterone inserts (Endometrin) compared to intramuscular progesterone in oil (PIO) for luteal phase support in PCOS patients. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(Suppl):S130. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.07.505.
    1. Feinberg EC, Beltsos AN, Nicolaou E, Marut EL, Uhler ML. Endometrin as luteal phase support in assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:174–178. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.09.019.
    1. Propst AM, Hill JA, Ginsburg ES, Hurwitz S, Politch J, Yanushpolsky EH. A randomized study comparing crinone 8% and intramuscular progesterone supplementation in in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril. 2001;76:1144–1149. doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(01)02872-2.
    1. Schoolcraft WB, Hesla JS, Gee MJ. Experience with progesterone gel for luteal support in a highly successful IVF programme. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:1284–1288. doi: 10.1093/humrep/15.6.1284.
    1. Rotterdam EA-SPCWG. Revised 2003 consensus on diagnostic criteria and long-term health risks related to polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) Hum Reprod. 2004;19:41–47. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deh098.
    1. Doody KJ, Schnell VL, Foulk RA, Miller CE, Kolb BA, Blake EJ, Yankov VI. Endometrin for luteal phase support in a randomized, controlled, open-label, prospective in-vitro fertilization trial using a combination of menopur and bravelle for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:1012–1017. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.01.069.
    1. Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Inc . Endometrin. Parsippany, NJ, USA: Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Inc; 2010.
    1. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc . Crinone. Parsippany, NJ, USA: Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc; 2011.
    1. Merck & Co, Inc . Follistim. Kenilworth, NJ, USA: Merck & Co, Inc; 2012.
    1. Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Inc . Menopur. Parsippany, NJ, USA: Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Inc; 2012.
    1. American Regent, Inc . Progesterone. Shirley, NY, USA: American Regent, Inc; 2009.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться