Talk:Progesterone

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Niamh.ogrady, Jdinger123, Arcmelodia, JasperT888.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 March 2012
I apparently just did this simple procedure incorrectly, either way, I have been editing on here for a long time and it has been as of only recently that I have to go through these barriers to get my requests approved. In any event, as I mentioned previously, I am conducting research independent-from any university although I have my neuroscience professor supervising me and I wanted to publish some of the findings about progesterone's effectiveness in treating traumatic brain injury. It was recently approved for phase III of clinical trials, and I plan to point this fact out first before offering any definitive conclusions about the results. However, TBI, (traumatic brain injury) look up how common it is, according to the CDC "TBI is a contributing factor in 30.5% of all injury-related deaths in the United States and responsible for a mind blowing estimated $76.5 billion in the United States in 2000" and recent statistics find that the injury rate is upwards of 3 million a year. Mind you this includes people with concussions, however, this is also to say that people with these "simple" brain injuries could have access to better health care options. This is not your typical, media makes a big announcement about a potential break through and a person makes a run with it and then everyone is interested. In fact, so far the opposite.

In a attempt to reinforce why I should be allowed t post and edit at will, one because I am far more scared to post anything slightly irrefutable than anyone else I am about to publish my first real article and I am still only an undergraduate. Point is that this treatment saves lives, and those who are injured and receive treatment are in better positions to heal and regain function faster. The fact is, whether you (whoever in the hell edits these things, its wikipedia for Christs sake) will sadly or have known someone to fall down their stairs and hit their head, have a son or daughter get a concussion in school sports, or god forbid receive a head injury from a road side bomb while serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. Guess I will attempt to make an impression here and add a quote and a reference, not in the specified manor but for credibility safe, -According to Representative Bill Pascrell (Democrat, NJ), TBI is "the signature injury of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan." And, according to The Pentagon "Congress [Is] Studying Brain-Damage Therapy". ProPublica. Retrieved 2011-01-23. "Brave Americans who risked everything for their country and sustained traumatic brain injuries -- the signature injury of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- deserve cognitive rehabilitation therapy to help them secure the best futures possible. It is unacceptable that the United States has been at war for nearly a decade and there is still no plan to treat these soldiers."

If I even now decided to stay up longer and go into the results of the findings, you would be so blown away, you would most likely contact me or the lead research directly. The fact is, 1) if you go on pubmed there are some 214 articles published on the entire matter I believe, 2) these articles do not come close to displaying the results that I have independently confirmed in my own studies, and 3, we are at the vanguard of a medical treatment that for over the last 20 years has been static. The most disappointing thing for me is that instead of being presented by wikipedia the time and opportunity to collectively get my ideas, thoughts, and arguments down in a manner that is persuasive yet unbiasis, educational yet straight forward, and cost effective. I just wasted all my time writing this hopefully persuasive cover letter to allow me to avoid such time onsuming restrictions and post my finishing points starting over spring break in a cohesive and summarizing manor, that I am still able to conclude my research and work to publish my results. Ill get started on typing up the actual research when it seems to be.

Sam

Srut07 (talk) 07:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * We can not publish preliminary findings from research that has not been published yet. What you can do is to summarize everything that has been published so far and mention the phase III trial that is in progress. Try to create a draft in your userspace so we can get an idea. Richiez (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup progesteron vs progestin effects/adverse effects
Seems the distinction could be clearer. Progestins are so diverse that trying to cover their effects in this article will bring only confusion. Richiez (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Section to a specific product and source is dead:

Adverse effects
The convenient pill form of "progesterone" (not actual progesterone, but a synthetic, patented progestin), needs to be taken at unnaturally high doses; and, this can have a dramatic health impact. For example, 400 mg can cause increased fluid retention, which may result in epilepsy, migraine, asthma, cardiac or renal dysfunction. Blood clots that can result in strokes and heart attacks, which may lead to death or long-term disability, may develop; pulmonary embolus or breast cancer can also develop as a result of [current practices in] progesterone therapy. [High-dose] progesterone is associated with an increased risk of thrombotic disorders such as thrombophlebitis, cerebrovascular disorders, pulmonary embolism, and retinal thrombosis.

Common adverse effects include cramps, abdominal pain, skeletal pain, perineal pain, headache, arthralgia, constipation, dyspareunia, nocturia, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, breast enlargement, joint pain, flatulence, hot flushes, decreased libido, thirst, increased appetite, nervousness, drowsiness, excessive urination at night. Psychiatric effects including depression, mood swings, emotional instability, aggression, abnormal crying, insomnia, forgetfulness, sleep disorders.

Less frequent adverse effects that may occur include allergy, anemia, bloating, fatigue, tremor, urticaria, pain, conjunctivitis, dizziness, vomiting, myalgia, back pain, breast pain, genital itching, genital yeast infection, upper respiratory tract infection, cystitis, dysuria, asthenia, xerophthalmia, syncope, dysmenorrhea, premenstrual tension, gastritis, urinary tract infection, vaginal discharge, pharyngitis, sweating, hyperventilation, vaginal dryness, dyspnea, fever, edema, flu-like symptoms, dry mouth, rhinitis, leg pain, skin discoloration, skin disorders, seborrhea, sinusitis, acne.

Percy Lavon Julian trivia paragraph and copyright violation paragraph
I removed a trivia paragraph about Percy Lavon Julian and a WP:COPYVIO paragraph (about Mexican wild yams no longer being used in 1995 to produce progesterone) added to the Plants section by IP-hopping anonymous editor 71.123.25.175 (aka 141.149.208.54 / 71.123.29.191 / 71.182.123.65 / 71.123.17.215 / 71.182.107.102 / 70.16.52.193 / 70.16.61.75 / 71.182.100.111 / 71.240.244.35 / 71.123.31.25 / 71.240.247.110 / 70.16.49.248 /  71.182.108.43 / 71.182.98.194 / 71.182.111.225):

"Upjohn is a pharmaceutical company located in Kalamazoo, Michigan whose main manufacturing business is making products from the soy sterols stigmasterol and sitosterol which come from the unsaponifiable fraction of soybean oil. Upjohn has been doing this since about 1959 when the plant was constructed and is America's only manufacturer of steroids. A small amount of steroids is made by a company in Mexico but they --do not-- use Mexican wild yams as a raw material any more to extract diosgenin. The supply of wild yams is fairly limited but there is a very large supply of soybeans. It was a problem of both supply and chemistry. ' The chemistry using the soybean route is superior to that for the yam route. '"

taken from:

Shurtleff, William; Ayoagi, Akiko (2009). History of soybeans and soyfoods in Mexico and Central America (1877–2009): extensively annotated bibliography and source book . Lafayette, Calif.: Soyinfo Center. ISBN 978-1-928914-21-1, p. 293 : 1066. Ball, Kenneth. 1995. The Upjohn Company's work with soy sterol products (Interview). SoyaScan Notes. May 11. Conducted by William Shurtleff of Soyfoods Center.

• Summary: "Upjohn is a pharmaceutical company whose basic business in Kalamazoo is making products from soy sterols, which come from the crude lipid faction of soybean oil. The company has been doing this since about 1959. The division of Upjohn that Ken works for is involved in selling bulk steroid products, all of which comes from soy lipids. Upjohn buys its raw material from Henkel and several other sources. They have sold androstenedione in the past to companies who further processed it chemically to make their own proprietary compounds. Ken is quite sure that no other company in America sells androstenedione or makes products from soy sterols. Upjohn is America's only major manufacturer of steroids. A very small amount of product is made by a company in Mexico, but they don't use Mexican wild yams as a raw material any more to extract diosgenin. The supply of yams is fairly limited but there is a very large supply of soybeans. It was a problem of both supply and chemistry. The chemistry using the soybean route is superior to that for the yam route."

Lynn4 (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Editing again...
I had submitted edits before to this page, and Richiez recommended I create a draft in my userspace. I did this but the editor told me that since the page already existed that I could just go ahead and make the changes myself. I would love to do this, however the page is semi-protected and thus I can not at this time. To avoid wasting any more time trying to do it myself I just thought I would post the additional information to add here in hopes that some administrator would just go ahead and add it. Thank you, information and sources to follow.


 * Protection against traumatic brain injury
 * Clinical studies
 * These results were initially reported from the phase I trial, a single-center, double-blinded study, that demonstrated the stable progesterone levels could be achieved rapidly and safely by use of a two-phase intravenous infusion following traumatic brain injury[1] and leading to a phase II trial known as ProTECT (Progesterone for Traumatic Brain Injury, Experimental Clinical Treatment).[2] The phase II trial was conducted at a level 1 trauma center and served as a single-center, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical pilot study and showed further promise that intravenous progesterone administration can decrease mortality rate for those who experience severe traumatic brain injury and improved cognitive function for those who experience moderate traumatic brain injury.[2] Further support showing progesterone’s neuroprotective effects that improved cognitive function and decreased mortality were seen in another human clinical trial in China that used a larger patient sample.[3]


 * Due to the results of the initial studies further clinical studies have begun, including: a National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke supported Phase III, 31 -center, doubleblind, randomized clinical trial for traumatic brain injury that is currently ongoing in the United States (ProTECT III: NCT00822900), and another trial (SyNAPSe: NCT01143064) is testing progesterone in over 140 centers worldwide. Additionally, there is a 22-center Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) that is in the early stages of planning for a Phase I/II clinical trial using progesterone to treat brain-injury in children.[4]
 * Animal studies
 * While progesterone’s mechanisms of action are still being investigated, recent research has shown progesterone to be pleiotropic and work in both its active and metabolic forms, most notablely allopregnanolone, to inhibit the damaging cascades that are induced after primary injury. Progesterone has not only been shown to be able to cross the blood brain barrier,[5] but has further demonstrated to: reduce edema formation[6] and modulate the expression of molecules implicated in edema formation,[7] reduce ischemic conditions by protecting against lipid peroxidation,[8] reduce inflammation[9] as well as reduce the production of pro-inflammtory cytokines,[10,11] and to reduce excitotoxicty induced neuronal death.[12]


 * To assess the effectiveness of progesterone on functional outcome in traumatic brain injury patients, two groups of male rats received bilateral MFC contusions and then received intraveneous progesterone administration 1, 6, 24, 48, 72, 96, and 120 hours post-injury, and then underwent behavioral testing with a Morris water maze 7 days later. Testing continued until the 10th day, and the brain injured groups of male rats were compared and it was shown that the progesterone administered rats performed better than the placebo administered rats.


 * 1) Primary source:
 * 2) Primary source:
 * 3) Primary source:
 * 4) Secondary source:
 * 5) Primary source/animal study:
 * 6) Primary source/animal study:
 * 7)  Primary source/animal study:
 * 8)  Primary source/animal study:
 * 9) Primary source/animal study:
 * 10) Primary source/animal study:
 * 11) Primary source/animal study:
 * 12) Primary source/animal study:

Thank you and I look forward to seeing these changes made whenever possible and this page becoming unprotected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srut12 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thank you for your contribution.  Per WP:MEDRS, citations to human clinical results must use secondary sources (i.e., review articles or meta-studies).  In references 1-4, only reference 4 is a secondary source.  Another review article that you have not cited,, looks relevant. Can you modify this section so that it only cites secondary sources?
 * The source requirements for animal studies are not quite as strict (see WP:SCIRS), but even here, secondary sources are preferred and none of the sources that you have provided are secondary. Can you identify any review articles that could replace primary sources? Here are some possibilities. Boghog (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I assume this would come as a subsection of "Brain damage" ? My idea is to start with the animal studies, something like "Animal studies have indicated potential use in traumatic brain injury. In experimental animal models of traumatic brain injury progesterone has been shown to be able to cross the blood brain barrier,[5] reduce edema formation[6], modulate the expression of molecules implicated in edema formation,[7] reduce ischemic conditions by protecting against lipid peroxidation,[8] reduce inflammation[9] as well as reduce the production of pro-inflammtory cytokines,[10,11] and to reduce excitotoxicty induced neuronal death.[12]. Subsequent human phase I and II trials did show some promise and phase III trials (ProTECT III: NCT00822900, SyNAPSe: NCT01143064) were initiated.(eg ref )."


 * Yes, you can be more verbose, was just a very quick draft. But for now I would leave out most or all details such as iv administration and focus on content that is likely to stay regardless of the results of the ongoing trials. Also the progesterone article should be mostly focused on mechanism of action while treatment details would go to TBI once there are good enough sources. Richiez (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request for Section on Brain Injury
I'm an undergraduate student studying biomedical engineering at Georgia Tech currently taking a senior level course in neuroscience. As an assignment, we were to edit a Wikipedia article, and I chose Progesterone as a treatment for TBI. I am requesting editing privileges for this article to edit the section on Brain Injury. Below is the included section edits along with their citations and I will add links to other articles after I am permitted to add what I've included:


 * Brain damage

Studies as far back as 1987 show that female sex hormones have an effect on the recovery of traumatic brain injury. In these studies, it was first observed that pseudopregnant female rats had reduced edema after traumatic brain injury. Recent clinical trials have shown that among patients that have suffered moderate traumatic brain injury, those that have been treated with progesterone are more likely to have a better outcome than those who have not.


 * Proposed Mechanism

Damage incurred by traumatic brain injury is believed to be caused in part by mass depolarization leading to excitotoxicity. One way in which progesterone helps to alleviate some of this excitotoxicity is by blocking the voltage-dependent calcium channels that trigger neurotransmitter release. It does so by manipulating the signaling pathways of transcription factors involved in this release. Another method for reducing the excitotoxicity is by up-regulating the inhibitory neurotransmitter receptor, GABAA.

Progesterone has also been shown to prevent apoptosis in neurons, a common consequence of brain injury. It does so by inhibiting enzymes involved in the apoptosis pathway specifically concerning the mitochondria, such as activated caspase 3 and cytochrome c.

Not only does progesterone help prevent further damage, it has also been shown to aid in neuroregeneration. One of the serious effects of traumatic brain injury includes edema. Animal studies show that progesterone treatment leads to a decrease in edema levels by increasing the concentration of macrophages and microglia sent to the injured tissue. This was observed in the form of reduced leakage from the blood brain barrier in secondary recovery in progesterone treated rats. In addition, progesterone was observed to have antioxidant properties, reducing the concentration of oxygen free radicals faster than without. There is also evidence that the addition of progesterone can also help remyelinate damaged axons due to trauma, restoring some lost neural signal conduction. Another way progesterone aids in regeneration includes increasing the circulation of endothelial progenitor cells in the brain. This helps new vasculature to grow around scar tissue which helps repair the area of insult.


 * Combination treatments

Vitamin D and progesterone separately have neuroprotective effects after traumatic brain injury, but when combined their effects are synergistic. When used at their optimal respective concentrations, the two combined have been shown to reduce cell death more than when alone. One study looks at a combination of progesterone with estrogen. Both progesterone and estrogen are known to have antioxidant-like qualities and are shown to reduce edema without injuring the blood-brain barrier. In this study, when the two hormones are administered alone it does reduce edema, but the combination of the two increases the water content, thereby increasing edema.
 * Clinical trials

The clinical trials for progesterone as a treatment for traumatic brain injury have only recently begun. ProTECT, a phase II trial conducted in Atlanta at Grady Memorial Hospital in 2007, the first to show that progesterone reduces edema in humans. Since then, trials have moved on to phase III. The National Institute of Health began conducting a nationwide phase III trial in 2011. A global phase III initiative called syNAPSe also began conducting phase III trials. SyNAPSe is run by a Belgian/French private pharmaceutical company, BHR Pharma, who are currently conducting their trials in the United States, Argentina, Europe, Israel, and Asia.

E.K.Woodall (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2012‎ (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for your contributions.  Have you read the above section?  Per WP:SECONDARY, secondary sources are strongly preferred. Of the citations that you have selected only #8  is a secondary source. The others are all primary sources.  If you had chosen citations from this list, things would have been much simpler.  I would appreciate if you would go through your list of citations and substitute primary with secondary sources where ever possible.  Thanks.  Boghog (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If you haven't seen this yet, please check out User:Diberri's Wikipedia template filling tool (instructions). Given a PubMed ID, one can quickly produce a full citation that can be copied and pasted into a Wikipedia article. This tool can save you a lot of work and ensure that the citations are displayed in a consistent manner.  Boghog (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I replaced primary sources for secondary sources where I could and added some more to mechanism but only using reviews. E.K.Woodall (talk) 2:48, 19 July 2012‎ (UTC)


 * ✅ Nice work! Thank you for your contribution. Your text has now been added to the article.  There was already a short section on brain damage, so I tried to integrate your text with the previous text.  The section probably needs a bit more editing to remove some redundancy between the previous text and your text, but I think the present version is in reasonably good shape.  Cheers.  Boghog (talk) 06:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Progesterone-Multiple Sclerosis Link
Hello.

Could you provide more information on the possible link between MS and progesterone, and what possible citations there might be for stating that in your article. I am a 36yo male, and I am curious if that link could be proven, not only for females, but males also, given the studies that males and females have the same levels of progesterone in their bodies, and if I read your article right, higher levels during pregnancy.

Thank you.

Traumaemt99 (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Why does "corporin" redirect here?
Not mentioned in article. Is it a trade name? 86.159.197.174 (talk) 04:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Why does "luteol" redirect here?
Term not used in text. 81.159.93.150 (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Same question for "luteohormone", which also redirects here. 81.159.93.150 (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Moved from article
I have moved the following content here because it lacks context/explanation. If anyone wants to use it to improve the article, here it is. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The last reaction shows an Oppenauer oxidation of pregnenolone to progesterone.



Split
Should we split into progesterone and progesterone (medication)? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

P4
Can someone explain the meaning of (P4) at the top of this article?

Simon de Danser (talk) 10:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, removed. Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * How about...  P4; Pregn-4-ene-3,20-dione  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:3980:7CC0:0:0:0:2F (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Progesterone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090109072721/http://cclnprod.cc.nih.gov/dlm/testguide.nsf/Index/CB26894E1EB28DEF85256BA5005B000E?OpenDocument to http://cclnprod.cc.nih.gov/dlm/testguide.nsf/Index/CB26894E1EB28DEF85256BA5005B000E?OpenDocument
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415001340/http://lipidlibrary.aocs.org/history/Julian/index.htm to http://lipidlibrary.aocs.org/history/Julian/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Foundation 2 Group 4b: Proposed Section Edits
I'm part of a 4 person group studying at UCSF School of Pharmacy. We are planning to edit several sections and below are the articles we plan to reference while doing our edits:

Section 2.2 Reproductive system

Horm Mol Biol Clin Invest, Progesterone in normal and pathological pregnancy, Gian Carlo Di Renzo, et al, 2016

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/beba/1f27d28656368ce6f8e8a7b4547178e811b4.pdf

Section 2.3 Breasts

Asi et al. Systematic Reviews, Progesterone vs. synthetic progestins and the risk of breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Noor Asi1, 2016

https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ucsf.idm.oclc.org/pmc/articles/PMC4960754/pdf/13643_2016_Article_294.pdf

Section 2.8 Brain damage

Cochrane Libary, Progesterone for acute traumatic brain injury (Review), Ma J, et al, 2016

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6463867/pdf/CD008409.pdf

Jdinger123 (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Please make sure the remaining group members assign themselves to the article. Also, check instructions for adding citations, like so. Health policy (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review

Part 1 Group 4b's edits improved the article by clarifying the physiologic function of progesterone in the reproduction system and its effect. They also contributed to how its levels are correlated with breast cancer risk. The difference between synthetic and natural progesterone in relation to breast cancer was also clarified.

The group achieved their goals by editing the sections on reproductive system and breasts, using the provided articles as a reference.

Part 2 The draft submission reflects a neutral point of view. YooCo (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Part 2 Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style? --Yes, the editor included additional links for Wikipedia topics and references for easy access. Aoka222 (talk) 04:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The group's edits helped improve the wikipedia article by providing more information into the effects of progesterone in preterm labor and its impact on the risk of breast cancer. Information was provided in an impartial and neutral manner. --Elizabeth Hays (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify… There is no evidence of plagiarism of copyright violation. --Ldolle (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Not clear where progesterone is produced in humans
The section on where progesterone is made/synthesized and/or released from is missing. Hydra Rain (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Use in transgender women.
Shouldn't be added a paragraph about use in trangender women as a part of cross-sex HRT? Beczky (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

And also form of administration in these people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beczky (talk • contribs) 22:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)