Study Study design / N Ovarian stimulationa Luteal support Results
In vitro fertilization In vitro fertilization In vitro fertilization In vitro fertilization In vitro fertilization
Colwell & Tummon 199115
RCT / 39
CC + hMG
Oral NMP 200 mg qds vs No luteal support Serum P levels higher in oral NMP group vs no-luteal-support group on days 2, 4 and 11 (all p < 0.001). Mean ± SD duration of luteal phase longer after oral NMP (17.0 ± 1.3 vs 13.7 ± 3.0 days, p < 0.05). No significant difference in ongoing pregnancy rates (20% vs 0%).
Pouly et al. 199616
RCT / 283
hMG
Oral NMP (100 mg in am, 200 mg in pm) vs Vaginal NMP 8% (90 mg/day)
Mean ± SD blood P level higher in oral NMP group vs vaginal NMP group on day 8 (50.9 ± 81.9 vs 29.9 ± 56.4 ng/mL, p < 0.001). No differences between oral NMP and vaginal NMP groups for rates of implantation (29.9% vs 35.3%), clinical pregnancy on day 30 (25.0% vs 28.8%), ongoing pregnancy on day 90 (22.9% vs 25.9%), abortion after day 90 (3.0% vs 11.1%), deliveries per patient (22.2% vs 23.0%) or deliveries per embryo transferred (11.1% vs 11.7%).
Friedler et al. 199917
RCT / 64
GnRH + hMG
Oral NMP 200 mg qds vs Vaginal NMP 100 mg bd
No difference in serum P levels between groups in conception cycles. Higher serum P levels on days 11 and 15 in oral NMP group vs vaginal NMP in non-conception cycles (p = 0.032). Lower implantation rate with oral NMP vs vaginal NMP (10.7% vs 30.7%, p < 0.01), but no significant differences in rates of pregnancy (33.0% vs 47.0%), miscarriage (40.0% vs 12.5%), or ongoing pregnancy (20.0% vs 41.1%).
Licciardi et al. 199918
RCT / 43
GnRH down-regulation, FSH or hMG or FSH + hMG
Oral NMP 200 mg tds vs IM P 50 mg/day
No difference in serum P levels between groups. Lower implantation rate with oral NMP vs IM P (18.1% vs 40.9%, p = 0.004). No difference in clinical pregnancy rates (45.8% vs 57.9%).
Tomic et al. 201119
Case–control / 370
GnRH agonist, FSH
Oral NMP 100 mg tds + Vaginal NMP 8% (90 mg/day) vs Vaginal NMP 8% (90 mg/day)
No difference in ongoing pregnancy rate between combination of oral + vaginal NMP vs vaginal NMP alone (39.5% vs 33.5%, p = .48), but lower abortion rate with combination therapy vs monotherapy (6.4% vs 15.6%, p < 0.05).
Intrauterine insemination Intrauterine insemination Intrauterine insemination Intrauterine insemination Intrauterine insemination
Güven et al. 201622
OL, OB / 591
FSH
Oral NMP 100 mg bd vs No luteal support All patients had unexplained infertility. Evaluation of IUI cycles that developed a single follicle. Higher clinical pregnancy rate in oral NMP group vs no-luteal-support group (24.3% versus 15.0%, p = 0.021). Higher live-birth rate in oral NMP group vs control group (19.8% vs 9.8%, p = 0.004).
Chi et al. 201623
RET, OB / 1779
Not availableb
Oral NMP vs Vaginal NMP vs DYDb
No difference in rates of biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, early miscarriage, or ectopic pregnancy between recipients of oral NMP vs vaginal NMP vs DYD.
Malhotra & Krishnaprasad 201612
OL, OB / 78
CC + hMG
Oral NMP-SR 200 or 300 mg od vs Oral DYD 10 mg bd All patients had unexplained infertility. In the first cycle, mid-luteal serum P levels of ≥ 14 ng/mL were achieved in 82.2% of oral NMP-SR recipients vs 78.8% of DYD recipients. Biochemically-confirmed pregnancy rate in the first cycle was 11% in oral NMP-SR group vs 30% in DYD group.
Gopinath & Desai 201420
OL, OB / 60
Natural or stimulated (CC ± hMG)
Oral NMP-SR 400 mg/day vs Oral DYD 10 mg bd All patients had unexplained infertility. In the first cycle, mean serum P levels were maintained at ≥ 14 ng/mL in the mid-luteal phase in 93.3% of patients (oral NMP-SR 90.0% vs DYD 96.7%). Overall first-cycle biochemically-confirmed pregnancy rate 5% (oral NMP-SR 6.7% vs DYD 3.3%). Possible reasons for the low pregnancy rate were monofollicular development in patients undergoing natural IUI cycles, a trend towards a low motility fraction, and evaluation of the first cycle only.