Oral dydrogesterone vs. micronized vaginal progesterone gel for luteal phase support in frozen-thawed single blastocyst transfer in good prognosis patients

被引:24
|
作者
Ozer, Gonul [1 ,2 ]
Yuksel, Beril [1 ,2 ]
Cicek, Ozge Senem Yucel [3 ]
Kahraman, Semra [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Istanbul Mem Hosp IVF, TR-34385 Istanbul, Turkey
[2] Reprod Genet Ctr, TR-34385 Istanbul, Turkey
[3] Kocaeli Univ, Fac Med, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, TR-41380 Kocaeli, Turkey
关键词
Frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycle; In vitro fertilization; Luteal phase support; Oral dydrogesterone; Randomized controlled trial; EMBRYO-TRANSFER CYCLES; NATURAL CYCLE; METAANALYSIS; PROTOCOLS; FRESH; IVF;
D O I
10.1016/j.jogoh.2020.102030
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Objective: To investigate the efficacy of oral dydrogesterone for luteal phase support (LPS) in modified natural cycle frozen-thawed embryo transfers (mNC-FET) compared to micronized vaginal progesterone (MVP) gel. Methods: This was a randomized, single-center, parallel controlled trial conducted at an ART and Reproductive Genetics Centre within a private hospital between January and August 2019. A total of 134 women, aged below 38, were assigned randomly to receive oral dydrogesterone (n = 67) or MVP (n = 67) for LPS in mNC-FET. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) and secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy and miscarriage rates, patients' satisfaction and tolerability of oral and vaginal progesterone. A questionnaire was developed to compare patient satisfaction and side effect profiles. Results: There was no significant difference in demographic features such as female age, body mass index, AMH levels and fresh cycle characteristics between two groups (p > 0.05). When mNC-FET outcomes were compared, OPR was 68.7 % in MVP gel group and 71.6 % in the dydrogesterone group respectively percentage difference, -2.99; 95 % CI: -17.96, 13.10) Biochemical and clinical pregnancy rates and biochemical and clinical miscarriage rates were also similar between two groups. A significantly higher patient tolerability score was present in the dydrogesterone arm (4.09 +/- 0.96 vs 3.36 +/- 1.23, p = 0.001). Conclusion: Our results suggest that oral dydrogesterone provides similar ongoing pregnancy rates compared to MVP gel as a LPS in mNC FET. Since dydrogesterone is an effective and easy-to-use option with fewer intolerable side effects including vaginal irritation, vaginal discharge, and preventing sexual intercourse, it can be used as LPS in mNC FET. (C) 2020 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Oral Dydrogesterone vs. Micronized Vaginal Progesterone(MVP) Gel for Luteal Phase Support (LPS) in Frozen-Thawed Single Blastocyst Transfer in Good Prognosis Patients
    Ozer, G.
    Yuksel, K. B.
    Cicek, O. S. Yucel
    Kahraman, S.
    HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2020, 35 : I293 - I293
  • [2] Oral dydrogesterone versus micronized vaginal progesterone for artificial frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles
    Alahmad, A.
    Neumann, K.
    Depenbusch, M.
    Schultze-Mosgau, A.
    Osterholz-Zaleski, T.
    Hajek, J.
    Schoepper, B.
    Griesinger, G.
    HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2019, 34 : 442 - 442
  • [3] Micronized progesterone plus dydrogesterone versus micronized progesterone alone for luteal phase support in frozen-thawed cycles: a prospective cohort study
    Ho, T.
    Pham, T.
    Le, K.
    Ly, T.
    Le, H.
    Nguyen, D.
    Ho, V.
    Dang, V.
    Phung, T.
    Norman, R.
    Mol, B.
    Vuong, L.
    HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2021, 36 : 134 - 134
  • [4] Supplementary dydrogesterone is beneficial as luteal phase support in artificial frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles compared to micronized progesterone alone
    Vidal, Angela
    Dhakal, Carolin
    Werth, Nathalie
    Weiss, Jurgen Michael
    Lehnick, Dirk
    Schwartz, Alexandra Sabrina Kohl
    FRONTIERS IN ENDOCRINOLOGY, 2023, 14
  • [5] Micronized progesterone plus dydrogesterone versus micronized progesterone alone for luteal phase support in frozen-thawed cycles (MIDRONE): a prospective cohort study
    Vuong, Lan N.
    Pham, Toan D.
    Le, Khanh T. Q.
    Ly, Trung T.
    Le, Ho L.
    Nguyen, Diem T. N.
    Ho, Vu N. A.
    Dang, Vinh Q.
    Phung, Tuan H.
    Norman, Robert J.
    Mol, Ben W.
    Ho, Tuong M.
    HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2021, 36 (07) : 1821 - 1831
  • [6] Oral dydrogesterone vs. micronized vaginal progesterone as luteal phase support in IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Griesinger, G.
    Tournaye, H.
    HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2017, 32 : 289 - 290
  • [7] Comparison of oral dydrogesterone and vaginal micronized progesterone for luteal phase support in intrauterine insemination
    Tas, Mustafa
    Uludag, Semih Zeki
    Aygen, Mustafa Ercan
    Sahin, Yilmaz
    GYNECOLOGICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY, 2020, 36 (01) : 77 - 80
  • [8] Is oral dydrogesterone a good alternative to vaginal micronized progesterone for luteal phase support in women receiving oocyte donation?
    Jonard, S.
    Lorillon, M.
    Robin, G.
    Keller, L.
    HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2023, 38
  • [9] Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Oral Dydrogesterone to Micronized Vaginal Progesterone for Endometrial Preparation in Frozen-Thawed Embryo Transfer Cycle
    de Macedo, Luma Caroline Gomes Mattos
    Neto, Mario Cavagna
    Dzik, Artur
    Rocha, Andressa do Rosario
    Lima, Sonia Maria Rolim Rosa
    CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2023, 50 (01):
  • [10] Is oral dydrogesterone equivalent to vaginal micronized progesterone for luteal phase support in women receiving oocyte donation?
    Lorillon, Margaux
    Robin, Geoffroy
    Keller, Laura
    Cailliau, Emeline
    Delcourt, Clemence
    Simon, Virginie
    Decanter, Christine
    Catteau-Jonard, Sophie
    REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY AND ENDOCRINOLOGY, 2024, 22 (01)