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

  • University of Maryland, Baltimore ROR

Fertility and Sterility, 51(1), 35-41

DOI 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)60424-7 PMID 2910717

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

clomiphene citrate versus progesterone suppositories luteal phase dysfunction, luteal phase defect treatment comparison clomiphene progesterone, vaginal progesterone suppositories luteal phase deficiency infertility, Murray Adashi clomiphene progesterone LPD retrospective cohort, endometrial biopsy correction luteal phase defect treatment efficacy, life table analysis luteal phase dysfunction treatment pregnancy outcome, oral clomiphene citrate luteal phase support infertility, LPD treatment modalities comparative retrospective cohort study, endometrial lag correction progesterone clomiphene citrate, luteal phase dysfunction management pregnancy rates comparison
PMID 2910717 2910717 DOI 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)60424-7 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)60424-7

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

Related articles