Reproductive Endocrinology · Luteal Phase

Oral clomiphene citrate and vaginal progesterone suppositories in the treatment of luteal phase dysfunction: a comparative study

Murray DL, Reich L, Adashi EY

Fertility and Sterility, 51(1), 35-41, 1989
DOI 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)60424-7 PMID 2910717
Read our synopsis

RRM Academy Synopsis

Clomiphene and progesterone showed no significant conception gap

This study looked back at the records of 65 infertility patients. All had luteal phase dysfunction (LPD), and biopsies showed it was fixed. Pregnancy rates over 12 months were not significantly different with clomiphene citrate or progesterone suppositories in this study. At 6 months, about 6 out of 10 clomiphene patients and 5 out of 10 progesterone patients were pregnant.

Key Findings

  • Sixty-five patients were studied: 35 treated with vaginal progesterone suppositories and 30 with oral clomiphene citrate. Four clomiphene patients were excluded because their biopsies stayed out of phase.
  • The cumulative conception rate by 1 year did not differ significantly between the groups (P = 0.7968): 81% with clomiphene citrate and 100% with progesterone suppositories.
  • At 6 months, 58% of clomiphene patients and 49% of progesterone patients were pregnant, compared with an estimated "normal" rate of 74%. At 12 months the estimated "normal" rate was 93%.
  • The progesterone curve differed from the theoretical normal curve (P < 0.01). The clomiphene curve could not be shown to differ from it (0.05 < P < 0.10, borderline).
  • Mean age was 31.67 years with clomiphene and 31.69 years with progesterone (P = 0.9004). Mean duration of infertility was 37.85 and 43.71 months (P = 0.2076).

Interpretation

The study is a retrospective cohort (a look back at past records) from one university center. It has no untreated comparison group, and the authors cite the ethical difficulty of withholding treatment. Only patients whose biopsy after treatment showed correction were included. Few patients remained under observation in the last months, so the 100% progesterone figure at 12 months rests on very few people. The authors call the two treatments comparable once the biopsy shows correction. They raise the possibility that a normal biopsy may not mean full functional recovery.

RRM Context

The researchers found the luteal phase problem by biopsy and treated it. They checked for correction before counting pregnancies. This sequence of finding a cause, treating it and confirming the result fits the cause-based approach of restorative reproductive medicine. The authors cite an earlier study with lower conception rates: 20.9 and 29.8% for clomiphene and progesterone. They speculate that including only corrected biopsies may explain the gap.

Abstract

Oral clomiphene citrate (CC) and vaginal progesterone suppositories (PS) are common treatment modalities in luteal phase dysfunction (LPD). Little is known regarding the relative efficacy of these agents. To study the use of CC and PS in the management of LPD, a retrospective cohort study of patients presenting with infertility was undertaken. Sixty-five patients in whom LPD was diagnosed and corrected, as judged by endometrial biopsies, were studied; 35 were treated with PS and 30 with CC. Using Student's t-tests and chi-square analyses, the two treatment groups were demographically comparable. Using life-table analysis, no one therapeutic approach proved superior. Clomiphene citrate and PS are comparable treatment modalities in the setting of LPD given correction of endometrial lag.

Topics

By this author

Related research

Reproductive Endocrinology › Luteal Phase › Luteal Phase Deficiency · Therapeutics › Hormonal Agents › Progesterone and Progestins · Menstrual Cycle › Cycle Disorders › Ovulatory Disturbances
PMID 2910717 2910717 DOI 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)60424-7 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)60424-7 Murray et al. 1989, Murray 1989

Cite this article

Murray, D. L., Reich, L., & Adashi, E. Y. (1989). Oral clomiphene citrate and vaginal progesterone suppositories in the treatment of luteal phase dysfunction: a comparative study. Fertility and sterility, 51(1), 35-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(16)60424-7