ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Progesterone in recurrent pregnancy loss: from controversial efficacy to mechanism-based patient stratification.
Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Progesterone supplementation has long been a controversial therapeutic intervention for recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL). Previous randomized controlled trials have yielded conflicting results, largely due to a "one-size-fits-all" approach that treats RPL as a homogeneous disease. From a pharmacological standpoint, this highlights the key challenge of patient heterogeneity in drug response. This review re-evaluates the role of progesterone by examining its different molecular mechanisms of action, including genomic and non-genomic signaling, immunomodulation (e.g., Treg cell induction, uterine natural killer cell regulation), and the modulation of endometrial receptivity. We then characterize the molecular heterogeneity of RPL, defining putative subtypes such as the "immune-dysregulated," "receptivity-defective," and "endocrine-insufficient" phenotypes. Crucially, we contend that the efficacy of progesterone is tightly linked to these specific pathological mechanisms. Finally, we propose a precision pharmacology framework that advocates for the use of mechanism-based biomarkers, such as endometrial transcriptomic signatures and immune cell profiles, to identify patient subgroups most likely to benefit from progesterone therapy. This paradigm shift from empirical supplementation to biomarker-guided prescription not only holds the potential to resolve long-standing controversies, but also paves the way for more effective, personalized pharmacotherapeutic strategies in RPL.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.