Is oral dydrogesterone equivalent to vaginal micronized progesterone for luteal phase support in women receiving oocyte donation?
- PMID: 39639284
- PMCID: PMC11619143
- DOI: 10.1186/s12958-024-01322-7
Is oral dydrogesterone equivalent to vaginal micronized progesterone for luteal phase support in women receiving oocyte donation?
Abstract
Research question: To determine whether the use of oral dydrogesterone (DYD) in luteal phase support (LPS) during an artificial cycle provides equivalent clinical and ongoing pregnancy, delivery and miscarriage rates as micronized vaginal progesterone (MVP) in oocyte donation recipients.
Design: This was a retrospective observational study of prospectively collected data from the assisted reproductive technology (ART) Department of Lille University Hospital from July 2018 to July 2022. All recipients underwent endometrial preparation by an artificial cycle. Luteal phase support (LPS) was provided by weekly intramuscular progesterone (IM) (500 mg/2 ml) and either DYD (40 mg/day) or MVP (800 mg/day) for 12 weeks if the pregnancy test was positive. The primary endpoint was the clinical pregnancy rate.
Results: Our study analysed 372 oocyte donation cycles with embryo transfer: 162 embryo transfers with DYD + IM progesterone and 210 embryo transfers with MVP + IM progesterone. After adjustment for confounding factors, our two groups were comparable in terms of clinical pregnancy rates, with 36.7% in the MVP group versus 30.3% in the DYD group (p = 0.55); ongoing pregnancy rates (29,1% versus 25.3%, p = 0.95); miscarriage rates (7.6% versus 4.9%, p = 0.35); and live birth rates (26.7% versus 25.3%, p = 0.86).
Conclusion: Oral dydrogesterone seems to be a good alternative to vaginal micronized progesterone for LPS treatment during an artificial cycle, especially in combination with a weekly injection of intramuscular progesterone in the course of oocyte donation.
Keywords: Dydrogesterone; Embryo transfer; Intramuscular progesterone; Luteal phase support; Micronized vaginal progesterone; Oocyte donation.
© 2024. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Given that this study was retrospective and without intervention, the opinion of the Ethics Committee on the study was not needed. All patients provided prior consent for the use and publication of their clinical, hormonal and ultrasound records. The study was approved by the French Data Protection Authority (CNIL) on 19 July 2016 (reference: DEC16-25). Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
Figures
References
-
- Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine and ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1270–83. 10.1093/humrep/der037. - PubMed
-
- Atzmon Y, Aslih N, Estrada D, Bilgory A, Ellenbogen A, Shalom-Paz E. Comparable outcomes using oral dydrogesterone vs. micronized vaginal progesterone in frozen embryo transfer: a retrospective cohort study. Reprod Sci. 2021;28:1874–81. 10.1007/s43032-020-00376-3. - PubMed
-
- Bachar, G., Haskia, C., Fainaru, O., 2023. Comparable outcomes using oral dydrogesterone versus intramuscular progesterone in frozen embryo transfer: a retrospective cohort study (preprint). In Review. 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2464304/v1
-
- Barbosa MWP, Valadares NPB, Barbosa ACP, Amaral AS, Iglesias JR, Nastri CO, de Martins W, P., Nakagawa, H.M.,. Oral dydrogesterone vs. vaginal progesterone capsules for luteal-phase support in women undergoing embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2018;22:148–56. 10.5935/1518-0557.20180018. - PMC - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources