Oral dydrogesterone versus vaginal progesterone gel in the luteal phase support: randomized controlled trial

Comparison of the effect of dydrogesterone and natural micronized progesterone for luteal-phase support in assisted reproductive technology cycles: A single-blind randomized clinical trial study

Background and Aims

One of the causes of preterm labor and recurrent abortion is progesterone deficiency in the luteal phase. The aim of the study was a comparison of the effect of oral dydrogesterone and vaginal progesterone for luteal-phase support (LPS) in assisted reproductive technology cycles (ART).

Methods

This randomized clinical control trial study was conducted on 207 infertile women. Samples were randomly divided into two groups. The first group received a natural micronized vaginal progesterone (MVP) of 400 mg once daily and the second group received dydrogesterone (Duphestone) 20 mg twice daily. Then chemical pregnancy, abortion, and live births were compared in two groups.

Results

The results of the study showed that the vaginal form of the drug could increase the chance of pregnancy (positive β-human chorionic gonadotropin) versus the oral form. According to the results of multiple logistic regression analysis after adjusting for other variables, the live birth rate in the vaginal group was more than five times that of the oral group (odds ratio = 5.07; 95% confidence interval = 1.24-20.65; p = 0.023).

Conclusion

The vaginal form of the progesterone could increase the chance of pregnancy and the outcome of fertility (live birth). Thus, vaginal progesterone is effective for LPS in women undergoing fresh embryo transfer.

Comparison of luteal support protocols in fresh IVF/ICSI cycles: a network meta-analysis

Despite the proven superiority of various luteal phase support protocols (LPS) over placebo in view of improved pregnancy rates in fresh cycles of IVF (in vitro fertilization) and ICSI (intracytoplasmic sperm injection) cycles, there is ongoing controversy over specific LPS protocol selection, dosage, and duration. The aim of the present study was to identify the optimal LPS under six core aspects of ART success, clinical pregnancy, live birth as primary outcomes and biochemical pregnancy, miscarriage, multiple pregnancy, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) events as secondary outcomes. Twelve databases, namely Embase (OVID), MEDLINE (R) (OVID), GlobalHealth (Archive), GlobalHealth, Health and Psychosocial Instruments, Maternity & Infant Care Database (MIDIRS), APA PsycTests, ClinicalTrials.gov, HMIC Health Management Information Consortium, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Scopus and two prospective registers, MedRxiv, Research Square were searched from inception to Aug.1st, 2023, (PROSPERO Registration: CRD42022358986). Only Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) were included. Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) model was employed for outcome analysis, presenting fixed effects, odds ratios (ORs) with 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). Vaginal Progesterone (VP) was considered the reference LPS given its' clinical relevance. Seventy-six RCTs, comparing 22 interventions, and including 26,536 participants were included in the present NMA. Overall CiNeMa risk of bias was deemed moderate, and network inconsistency per outcome was deemed low (Multiple pregnancy χ2: 0.11, OHSS χ2: 0.26), moderate (Clinical Pregnancy: χ2: 7.02, Live birth χ2: 10.95, Biochemical pregnancy: χ2: 6.60, Miscarriage: χ2: 11.305). Combinatorial regimens, with subcutaneous GnRH-a (SCGnRH-a) on a vaginal progesterone base and oral oestrogen (OE) appeared to overall improve clinical pregnancy events; VP + OE + SCGnRH-a [OR 1.57 (95% CrI 1.11 to 2.22)], VP + SCGnRH-a [OR 1.28 (95% CrI 1.05 to 1.55)] as well as live pregnancy events, VP + OE + SCGnRH-a [OR 8.81 (95% CrI 2.35 to 39.1)], VP + SCGnRH-a [OR 1.76 (95% CrI 1.45 to 2.15)]. Equally, the progesterone free LPS, intramuscular human chorionic gonadotrophin, [OR 9.67 (95% CrI 2.34, 73.2)] was also found to increase live birth events, however was also associated with an increased probability of ovarian hyperstimulation, [OR 1.64 (95% CrI 0.75, 3.71)]. The combination of intramuscular and vaginal progesterone was associated with higher multiple pregnancy events, [OR 7.09 (95% CrI 2.49, 31.)]. Of all LPS protocols, VP + SC GnRH-a was found to significantly reduce miscarriage events, OR 0.54 (95% CrI 0.37 to 0.80). Subgroup analysis according to ovarian stimulation (OS) protocol revealed that the optimal LPS across both long and short OS, taking into account increase in live birth and reduction in miscarriage as well as OHSS events, was VP + SCGnRH-a, with an OR 2.89 [95% CrI 1.08, 2.96] and OR 2.84 [95% CrI 1.35, 6.26] respectively. Overall, NMA data suggest that combinatorial treatments, with the addition of SCGnRH-a on a VP base result in improved clinical pregnancy and live birth events in both GnRH-agonist and antagonist ovarian stimulation protocols.

Role of Dydrogesterone for Luteal Phase Support in Assisted Reproduction

Clinical outcomes of in vitro fertilization (IVF) have significantly improved over the years with the advent of the frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) technique. Ovarian hyperstimulation during IVF cycles causes luteal phase deficiency, a condition of insufficient progesterone. Intramuscular or vaginal progesterone and dydrogesterone are commonly used for luteal phase support in FET. Oral dydrogesterone has a higher bioavailability than progesterone and has high specificity for progesterone receptors. Though micronized vaginal progesterone has been the preferred option, recent data suggest that oral dydrogesterone might be an alternative therapeutic option for luteal phase support to improve clinical outcomes of IVF cycles. Dydrogesterone has a good safety profile and is well tolerated. Its efficacy has been evaluated in several clinical studies and demonstrated to be non-inferior to micronized vaginal progesterone in large-scale clinical trials. Oral dydrogesterone may potentially become a preferred drug for luteal phase support in millions of women undergoing IVF.

The optimal route of progesterone administration for luteal phase support in a frozen embryo transfer: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the optimal route of progesterone administration for luteal phase support in a frozen embryo transfer.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

PATIENTS

Women undergoing frozen embryo transfer (FET).

INTERVENTIONS

We conducted an extensive database search of Medline (PubMed), Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Trials Register using relevant keywords and their combinations to find randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the routes (i.e., oral, vaginal, intramuscular) of progesterone administration for luteal phase support (LPS) in artificial FET.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Clinical pregnancy, live birth, miscarriage.

RESULTS

Four RCTs with 3245 participants undergoing artificial endometrial preparation (EP) cycles during FET were found to be eligible. Four trials compared vaginal progesterone with intramuscular progesterone and two trials compared vaginal progesterone with oral progesterone. One study favored of vaginal versus oral progesterone for clinical pregnancy rates (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.22-0.92) and other study favored intramuscular versus vaginal progesterone for clinical pregnancy rates (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.21-1.76) and live birth rates (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.28-2.05). Tabulation of overall evidence strength assessment showed low-quality evidence on the basis that for each outcome-comparison pair, there were deficiencies in either directness of outcome measurement or study quality.

CONCLUSION

There was little consensus and evidence was heterogeneous on the optimal route of administration of progesterone for LPS during FET in artificial EP cycles. This warrants more trials, indirect comparisons, and network meta-analyses.

PROPERO NO

CRD42021251017.

Supplementary dydrogesterone is beneficial as luteal phase support in artificial frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles compared to micronized progesterone alone

Introduction

The number of frozen embryo transfers increased substantially in recent years. To increase the chances of implantation, endometrial receptivity and embryo competency must be synchronized. Maturation of the endometrium is facilitated by sequential administration of estrogens, followed by administration of progesterone prior to embryo transfer. The use of progesterone is crucial for pregnancy outcomes. This study compares the reproductive outcomes and tolerability of five different regimens of hormonal luteal phase support in artificial frozen embryo transfer cycles, with the objective of determining the best progesterone luteal phase support in this context.

Design

This is a single-center retrospective cohort study of all women undergoing frozen embryo transfers between 2013 and 2019. After sufficient endometrial thickness was achieved by estradiol, luteal phase support was initiated. The following five different progesterone applications were compared: 1) oral dydrogesterone (30 mg/day), 2) vaginal micronized progesterone gel (90 mg/day), 3) dydrogesterone (20 mg/day) plus micronized progesterone gel (90 mg/day) (dydrogesterone + micronized progesterone gel), 4) micronized progesterone capsules (600 mg/day), and (5) subcutaneous injection of progesterone 25 mg/day (subcutan-P4). The vaginal micronized progesterone gel application served as the reference group. Ultrasound was performed after 12-15 days of oral estrogen (≥4 mg/day) administration. If the endometrial thickness was ≥7 mm, luteal phase support was started, up to six days before frozen embryo transfer, depending on the development of the frozen embryo. The primary outcome was the clinical pregnancy rate. Secondary outcomes included live birth rate, ongoing pregnancy, and miscarriage and biochemical pregnancy rate.

Results

In total, 391 cycles were included in the study (median age of study participants 35 years; IQR 32-38 years, range 26-46 years). The proportions of blastocysts and single transferred embryos were lower in the micronized progesterone gel group. Differences among the five groups in other baseline characteristics were not significant. Multiple logistic regression analysis, adjusting for pre-defined covariates, showed that the clinical pregnancy rates were higher in the oral dydrogesterone only group (OR = 2.87, 95% CI 1.38-6.00, p=0.005) and in the dydrogesterone + micronized progesterone gel group (OR = 5.19, 95% CI 1.76-15.36, p = 0.003) compared to micronized progesterone gel alone. The live birth rate was higher in the oral dydrogesterone-only group (OR = 2.58; 95% CI 1.11-6.00; p=0.028) and showed no difference in the smaller dydrogesterone + micronized progesterone gel group (OR = 2.49; 95% CI 0.74-8.38; p=0.14) compared with the reference group.

Conclusion

The application of dydrogesterone in addition to micronized progesterone gel was associated with higher clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate and then the use of micronized progesterone gel alone. DYD should be evaluated as a promising LPS option in FET Cycles.

Prevention of Pregnancy Loss: Combining Progestogen Treatment and Psychological Support

Pregnancy loss can be defined as a loss before either 20 or 24 weeks of gestation (based on the first day of the last menstrual period) or the loss of an embryo or fetus less than 400 g in weight if the gestation age is unknown. Approximately 23 million pregnancy losses occur worldwide every year, equating to 15-20% of all clinically recognized pregnancies. A pregnancy loss is usually associated with physical consequences, such as early pregnancy bleeding ranging in severity from spotting to hemorrhage. However, it can also be associated with profound psychological distress, which can be felt by both partners and may include feelings of denial, shock, anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and suicide. Progesterone plays a key part in the maintenance of a pregnancy, and progesterone supplementation has been assessed as a preventative measure in patients at increased risk of experiencing a pregnancy loss. The primary objective of this piece is to assess the evidence for various progestogen formulations in the treatment of threatened and recurrent pregnancy loss, postulating that an optimal treatment plan would preferably include a validated psychological support tool as an adjunct to appropriate pharmacological treatment.

The Addition of Dydrogesterone after Frozen Embryo Transfer in Hormonal Substituted Cycles with Low Progesterone Levels

OBJECTIVE

 To determine whether a rescue strategy using dydrogesterone (DYD) could improve the outcomes of frozen embryo transfer cycles (FET) with low progesterone (P4) levels on the day of a blastocyst transfer.

METHODS

 Retrospective cohort study including FET cycles performed between July 2019 and October 2020 following an artificial endometrial preparation cycle using estradiol valerate and micronized vaginal P4 (400 mg twice daily). Whenever the serum P4 value was below 10 ng/mL on the morning of the planned transfer, DYD 10 mg three times a day was added as supplementation. The primary endpoint was ongoing pregnancy beyond 10 weeks. The sample was subdivided into two groups according to serum P4 on the day of FET: low (< 10 ng/mL, with DYD supplementation) or normal (above 10 ng/mL). We performed linear or logistic generalized estimating equations (GEE), as appropriate.

RESULTS

 We analyzed 304 FET cycles from 241 couples, 11.8% (n = 36) of which had serum P4 below 10 ng/mL on the FET day. Baseline clinical data of patients was comparable between the study groups.Overall, 191 cycles (62.8%) had a biochemical pregnancy, of which 131 (44,1%) were ongoing pregnancies, with a 29,8% miscarriage rate. We found no statistically significant differences in the hCG positive (63 vs 64%) or ongoing pregnancy rates (50 vs 43,3%) between those FETs with low or normal serum P4 values, even after multivariable logistic regression modelling.

CONCLUSION

 Our results indicate that DYD 10 mg three times a day administered in women who perform FET with P4 serum levels < 10 ng/mL, allows this group to have pregnancy rates beyond 12 weeks at least as good as those with serum levels above 10 ng/mL.

[Dydrogesterone versus micronized vaginal progesterone as luteal phase support after fresh embryo transfer in IVF]

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to compare the live birth rate and miscarriage rate after fresh embryo transfer (Fresh ET) when patients are treated either with oral dydrogesterone or micronized vaginal progesterone (MVP) as luteal phase support (LPS). The vaginal route is still preferred, despite the discomfort for the patients and recent RCTs showing similar results for dydrogesterone and MVP.

METHODS

All 556 consecutive Fresh ET after autologous IVF procedure, from December 2011 to March 2013 in one centre in France were included. Patients were treated either with dydrogesterone 10mg every 12hours (n=267) or MVP 200mg every 12hours (n=289), the physician's arbitrary choice on the day of the oocyte aspiration procedure.

RESULTS

The groups were comparable regarding the demographic data and stimulation protocols, except for the rank of the oocyte pickup procedure [1.54±0.80 vs. 1.74±0.96, (P=0.01)], with no significant difference in live birth rates (22.4% vs. 23.8%, P=0.77) and miscarriage rates (4.1% vs. 5.5%, P=0.55) for dydrogesterone vs. MVP respectively. The results were similar in a good prognosis patients' subgroup.

CONCLUSIONS

LPS with either dydrogesterone or MVP after Fresh ET showed similar live birth rates and miscarriage rates. The benefits of the oral over vaginal route might be higher tolerance and possibly better compliance. Dydrogesterone seems to be a safe treatment, but its long-term innocuity needs to be further proven.

Dydrogesterone after 60 years: a glance at the safety profile

OBJECTIVE

To provide an evidence-based safety and tolerability overview of dydrogesterone under various progesterone-deficient conditions as a commemoration of its role in managing women's reproductive health over the past 60 years.

METHODS

To identify relevant publications, we used a semi-systematic approach, which included performing a structured search through the PubMed and Cochrane central databases as well as an unstructured search for publications published in English from 2010 onward with human clinical data.

RESULTS

A total of 32 relevant clinical studies were identified. Results were reported in the context of overall adverse events (AEs) and segregated according to various progesterone-deficient conditions. AEs concerning breasts (breast cancer risk), the endometrium (endometrial cancer risk), venous thromboembolism risk, and cardiovascular risk were found to be minimal when dydrogesterone was used as part of a menopausal hormone therapy regimen lasting ≤260 weeks. Vagina-related AEs, such as bleeding, discharge, irritation, and difficult coitus, occurred less frequently with dydrogesterone when used as luteal phase support in the context of assisted reproductive techniques (ARTs). However, other common AEs, such as headache, dizziness, abdominal pain, flatulence, and nausea, occurred more frequently with dydrogesterone. No maternal complications or congenital anomalies could be linked to dydrogesterone usage during ARTs or during early pregnancy to prevent recurrent miscarriages. Studies on dydrogesterone in endometriosis and premenstrual syndrome remain scarce.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-approval, dydrogesterone has displayed a favorable safety and tolerability profile during its 60-year use, which is reassuring, considering its important role in managing women's reproductive health.

Luteal phase support for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection fresh cycles: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Various luteal phase supports (LPSs) have been proven to increase the pregnancy rate in fresh cycles of in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection; however, there is still significant debate regarding the optimal use of LPS.

METHODS

A systematic review with the use of a network meta-analysis was performed via electronic searching of Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar (up to January 2021) to compare the effectiveness and safety of various LPSs, as well as to evaluate the effects of different initiations of LPSs on pregnancy outcomes. The primary outcomes included live birth and ongoing pregnancy, with the results presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Eighty-nine randomized controlled trials with 29,625 women comparing 14 interventions or placebo/no LPS treatments were included in the meta-analyses. No significant differences were found in terms of the pregnancy outcomes when LPS was started within 48 h after oocyte retrieval versus a delayed initiation between 48 h and 96 h after oocyte retrieval. The addition of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists to progesterone vaginal pessaries showed a significant benefit in terms of live birth (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.78). Only human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) was found to be more efficacious than the placebo/no LPS treatment in terms of live birth (OR 15.43, 95% CI 2.03 to 117.12, low evidence). Any active LPSs (except for rectal or subcutaneous progesterone) was significantly more efficacious than the placebo/no LPS treatment in terms of ongoing pregnancy, with ORs ranging between 1.77 (95% CI 1.08 to 2.90) for the vaginal progesterone pessary and 2.14 (1.23 to 3.70) for the intramuscular progesterone treatment. Among the comparisons of efficacy and tolerability between the active treatments, the differences were small and very uncertain.

CONCLUSION

Delays in progesterone supplementation until 96 h after oocyte retrieval does not affect pregnancy outcomes. The safety of GnRH agonists during the luteal phase needs to be evaluated in future studies before the applications of these agonists in clinical practice. With comparable efficacy and acceptability, there may be several viable clinical options for LPS.

Progestogens for preventing miscarriage: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Miscarriage, defined as the spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before 24 weeks' gestation, is common with approximately 25% of women experiencing a miscarriage in their lifetime, and 15% to 20% of pregnancies ending in a miscarriage. Progesterone has an important role in maintaining a pregnancy, and supplementation with different progestogens in early pregnancy has been attempted to rescue a pregnancy in women with early pregnancy bleeding (threatened miscarriage), and to prevent miscarriages in asymptomatic women who have a history of three or more previous miscarriages (recurrent miscarriage).

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the relative effectiveness and safety profiles for the different progestogen treatments for threatened and recurrent miscarriage, and provide rankings of the available treatments according to their effectiveness, safety, and side-effect profile.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to 15 December 2020: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE(R), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness or safety of progestogen treatment for the prevention of miscarriage. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion. Randomised trials published only as abstracts were eligible if sufficient information could be retrieved. We excluded quasi- and non-randomised trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We performed pairwise meta-analyses and indirect comparisons, where possible, to determine the relative effects of all available treatments, but due to the limited number of included studies only direct or indirect comparisons were possible. We estimated the relative effects for the primary outcome of live birth and the secondary outcomes including miscarriage (< 24 weeks of gestation), preterm birth (< 37 weeks of gestation), stillbirth, ectopic pregnancy, congenital abnormalities, and adverse drug events. Relative effects for all outcomes are reported separately by the type of miscarriage (threatened and recurrent miscarriage). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Our meta-analysis included seven randomised trials involving 5,682 women, and all provided data for meta-analysis. All trials were conducted in hospital settings. Across seven trials (14 treatment arms), the following treatments were used: three arms (21%) used vaginal micronized progesterone; three arms (21%) used dydrogesterone; one arm (7%) used oral micronized progesterone; one arm (7%) used 17-α-hydroxyprogesterone, and six arms (43%) used placebo. Women with threatened miscarriage Based on the relative effects from the pairwise meta-analysis, vaginal micronized progesterone (two trials, 4090 women, risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.07, high-certainty evidence), and dydrogesterone (one trial, 406 women, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.07, moderate-certainty evidence) probably make little or no difference to the live birth rate when compared with placebo for women with threatened miscarriage. No data are available to assess the effectiveness of 17-α-hydroxyprogesterone or oral micronized progesterone for the outcome of live birth in women with threatened miscarriage. The pre-specified subgroup analysis by number of previous miscarriages is only possible for vaginal micronized progesterone in women with threatened miscarriage. In women with no previous miscarriages and early pregnancy bleeding, there is probably little or no improvement in the live birth rate (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.04, high-certainty evidence) when treated with vaginal micronized progesterone compared to placebo. However, for women with one or more previous miscarriages and early pregnancy bleeding, vaginal micronized progesterone increases the live birth rate compared to placebo (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.15, high-certainty evidence). Women with recurrent miscarriage Based on the results from one trial (826 women) vaginal micronized progesterone (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.15, high-certainty evidence) probably makes little or no difference to the live birth rate when compared with placebo for women with recurrent miscarriage. The evidence for dydrogesterone compared with placebo for women with recurrent miscarriage is of very low-certainty evidence, therefore the effects remain unclear. No data are available to assess the effectiveness of 17-α-hydroxyprogesterone or oral micronized progesterone for the outcome of live birth in women with recurrent miscarriage. Additional outcomes All progestogen treatments have a wide range of effects on the other pre-specified outcomes (miscarriage (< 24 weeks of gestation), preterm birth (< 37 weeks of gestation), stillbirth, ectopic pregnancy) in comparison to placebo for both threatened and recurrent miscarriage. Moderate- and low-certainty evidence with a wide range of effects suggests that there is probably no difference in congenital abnormalities and adverse drug events with vaginal micronized progesterone for threatened (congenital abnormalities RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.46, moderate-certainty evidence; adverse drug events RR 1.07 95% CI 0.81 to 1.39, moderate-certainty evidence) or recurrent miscarriage (congenital abnormalities 0.75, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.85, low-certainty evidence; adverse drug events RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.29, moderate-certainty evidence) compared with placebo. There are limited data and very low-certainty evidence on congenital abnormalities and adverse drug events for the other progestogens.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The overall available evidence suggests that progestogens probably make little or no difference to live birth rate for women with threatened or recurrent miscarriage. However, vaginal micronized progesterone may increase the live birth rate for women with a history of one or more previous miscarriages and early pregnancy bleeding, with likely no difference in adverse events. There is still uncertainty over the effectiveness and safety of alternative progestogen treatments for threatened and recurrent miscarriage.

Design, synthesis, and biological activities of novel thiophene, pyrimidine, pyrazole, pyridine, coumarin and isoxazole: Dydrogesterone derivatives as antitumor agents

On the basis of our consideration to design and to develop antitumor activities of heterocyclic compound derivatives, especially in fused ring system, we refer to the possibility of the heterocyclic extension of one of the most important steroid compounds used as a medicinal drug. The reaction of dydrogesterone with each of the malononitrile or ethylcyanoacetate containing elemental sulfur afforded thiophene derivatives 1a,b. Also, dydrogesterone was reacted with a mixture of ethylcyanoacetate–hydrazine, ethylcyanoacetae–urea, or ethylcyanoacetate–thiourea to produce pyrazole derivative 4 and pyrimidine derivatives 5a,b. Thienopyrimidine derivatives 2a–d were introduced from the reaction of thiophene derivatives 1a,b with either phenylisothiocyanate or benzoylisothioyanate. Furthermore, compounds 1a,b were directed toward the reaction with ethylcyanoacetate to produce compounds 6a,b, and the last compounds 6a,b were directed toward cyclization to obtain thienopyridine derivatives 7a,b. In addition, compounds 6a,b were subjected to react with different carbonyl compounds, such as salicylaldehyde, cyclopentanone-elemental sulfur, malonaldehyde, and acetylacetone to produce coumarin derivatives 8a,b, fused thiophene derivatives 9a,b, and pyridine derivatives 10a–d. Isooxazole derivatives 12a,b were afforded through the reaction of compounds 6a,b with hydroxylamine hydrochloride. Finally, 2-pyridone derivatives 14a,b were obtained through the reaction of compounds 6a,b with benzoylacetonitrile. Conformation structure of the synthesized compounds was established by applying IR, 1H NMR, 13C NMR, and mass spectrometry, and their antitumor activity was examined. Some compounds showed promising growth inhibitory effects on the three different cell lines.

What is the optimal luteal support in assisted reproductive technology?

The need for luteal phase support in IVF/ICSI is well established. A large effort has been made in the attempt to identify the optimal type, start, route, dosage and duration of luteal phase support for IVF/ICSI and frozen embryo transfer. These questions are further complicated by the different types of stimulation protocols and ovulation triggers used in ART. The aim of this review is to supply a comprehensive overview of the available types of luteal phase support, and the indications for their use.A review of the literature was carried out in the effort to find the optimal luteal phase support regimen with regards to pregnancy related outcomes and short and long term safety.The results demonstrate that vaginal, intramuscular, subcutaneous and rectal progesterone are equally effective as luteal phase support in IVF/ICSI. GnRH agonists and oral dydrogesterone are new and promising treatment modalities but more research is needed. hCG and estradiol are not recommended for luteal phase support. More research is needed to establish the most optimal luteal phase support in frozen embryo transfer cycles, but progesterone has been shown to improve live birth rate in some studies. Luteal phase support should be commenced between the evening of the day of oocyte retrieval, and day three after oocyte retrieval and it should be continued at least until the day of positive pregnancy test.So, in conclusion still more large and well-designed RCT's are needed to establish the most optimal luteal phase support in each stimulation protocol, and especially in frozen embryo transfer.

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

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.

Dydrogesterone as an oral alternative to vaginal progesterone for IVF luteal phase support: A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the evidence on the efficacy and safety of oral dydrogesterone versus micronized vaginal progesterone (MVP) for luteal phase support. Embase and MEDLINE were searched for studies that evaluated the effect of luteal phase support with daily administration of oral dydrogesterone (20 to 40 mg) versus MVP capsules (600 to 800 mg) or gel (90 mg) on pregnancy or live birth rates in women undergoing fresh-cycle IVF (protocol registered at PROSPERO [CRD42018105949]). Individual participant data (IPD) were extracted for the primary analysis where available and aggregate data were extracted for the secondary analysis. Nine studies were eligible for inclusion; two studies had suitable IPD (full analysis sample: n = 1957). In the meta-analysis of IPD, oral dydrogesterone was associated with a significantly higher chance of ongoing pregnancy at 12 weeks of gestation (odds ratio [OR], 1.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08 to 1.61; P = 0.0075) and live birth (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.57; P = 0.0214) compared to MVP. A meta-analysis combining IPD and aggregate data for all nine studies also demonstrated a statistically significant difference between oral dydrogesterone and MVP (pregnancy: OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.34; P = 0.04; live birth: OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.38; P = 0.02). Safety parameters were similar between the two groups. Collectively, this study indicates that a higher pregnancy rate and live birth rate may be obtained in women receiving oral dydrogesterone versus MVP for luteal phase support.

Fetal safety of medications used in treating infertility

INTRODUCTION

The medications used in assisted reproduction are given before and during early pregnancy, and hence, they may potentially result in adverse fetal effects. In this review we present an updated account of their fetal safety and discuss methodological challenges in interpretation of existing data.

AREAS COVERED

The fetal safety/risks of clomiphene citrate, aromatase inhibitors, metformin, gonadotropins and progestins are discussed. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Google, and Google Scholar from inception to 30 April 2020 for publications pertinent to our topic.

EXPERT OPINION

There are several major challenges in studying fetal safety of medications used in assisted reproduction. The fact is that the rates of congenital malformations among infertile women giving birth spontaneously is higher than the rates among healthy women conceiving spontaneously. In most clinical studies of assisted reproduction, the primary endpoint is the success in inducing pregnancy, neglecting to report pregnancy outcome and adverse neonatal event. As an example for this reality, it has been estimated that between 1977 and 2005 around 10 million pregnancies were treated with dydrogesterone (DYD), yet till 2019 only very few studies, with a total sample size of less than 600 were reported with regards to fetal safety.

Luteal phase support in fresh and frozen embryo transfer cycles

Nearly 5 million babies have been delivered following assisted conception (IVF/ICSI) and the demand is increasing. Meticulous ovarian stimulation and well programmed luteal phase support are the landmarks of treatment success. Although the importance of luteal phase support in IVF/ICSI cycles is well established, the optimal route, dose and duration of this support is still a matter of debate. Regardless of the ovarian stimulation, parenteral and vaginal progesterone has been one of the most common routes. However, oral or subcutaneous routes are also well-investigated and reveal satisfactory clinical outcomes. It is obviously critical to choose a progesterone with adequate clinical efficacy and patient tolerability as well. Moreover, fresh and frozen embryo transfer cycles markedly different from each other in terms of physiological changes and luteal support concept should be modified accordingly. The aim of this narrative review is to provide evidence-based take home messages for the luteal phase support in either fresh or frozen embryo transfer cycles in the context of a recent scientific evidence.

The role of luteal support during IVF: a qualitative systematic review

The aim of this review is to provide qualitative evidence-based synthesis regarding efficacy of luteal-phase support on fertility outcome in women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) with respect to clinical or live birth rates and pregnancy loss rates. Although the need of luteal phase support in IVF/ICSI cycles is well-known, the optimal start, dosage, route and the duration of the luteal phase support is still subject of debate. Data suggest that the optimal period to start with the luteal phase support would be between 24-72 hours after oocyte-retrieval and should continue at least until a positive pregnancy test is achieved. However, the majority of IVF-centers worldwide provide progesterone support up to 8 weeks of pregnancy. Among the well-established routes of luteal support, oral dydrogesterone and subcutaneous progesterone represent new and interesting routes of progesterone administration. The current studies support these routes of progesterone administration use in terms of comparable pregnancy rates and pregnancy loss rates to vaginal and intramuscular progesterone. Furthermore, the acceptance and tolerability among patients seems to be even better. In the frozen-thawed embryo transfer, dydrogesterone and vaginal progesterone are not effective as monotherapy treatments; however, when combined there is no reason to avoid one or the other in this setting.

Do early luteal serum progesterone levels predict the reproductive outcomes in IVF with oral dydrogesterone for luteal phase support?

Objective

We sought to determine whether the early luteal serum progesterone (P₄) level predicts the success of IVF treatment with oral dydrogesterone for luteal support.

Method

This retrospective monocentric cohort study included 242 women who underwent IVF treatment with fresh embryo transfer (ET) between July 2017 and June 2018. The population was unselected, and women were treated according to our unit’s usual stimulation protocols. For the luteal phase support (LPS), all women were supplemented with a 10 mg three-times-daily dose of oral dydrogesterone beginning on the day of oocyte pick-up (OPU). Blood sampling was performed on the day of ET (Day 2–3 after OPU) to determine the early luteal serum progesterone level.

Results

ROC curve analysis allowed us to determine two thresholds for the prediction of live birth using the early P₄ level. Women who had early luteal P₄ levels greater than 252 nmol/l had a significantly higher live birth rate (27.1%) than women with early luteal P₄ between 115 and 252 nmol/l (17.2%) and women with early luteal P₄ below 115 nmol/l (6.0%; p = 0.011). After a multiple regression analysis, an early luteal P₄ level greater than 252 nmol/l was still associated with a higher chance of a live birth than a P₄ between 115 and 252 nmol/l (OR = 0.40 [0.18–0.91]; p = 0.028) or a P₄ below 115 nmol/l (OR = 0.10 [0.01–0.52]; p = 0.006).

Conclusions

Our study suggests a positive association between early P₄ levels and reproductive outcomes in IVF using oral dydrogesterone for luteal support. The inconsistencies between our results and those of other studies suggest that extrapolation is impractical. Further larger prospective cohort studies should be conducted to determine reliable thresholds that could be used to personalize luteal phase support.

Oral dydrogesterone versus intravaginal micronized progesterone gel for luteal phase support in IVF: a randomized clinical trial

STUDY QUESTION

Is oral dydrogesterone 30 mg daily non-inferior to 8% micronized vaginal progesterone (MVP) gel 90 mg daily for luteal phase support in IVF?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Oral dydrogesterone demonstrated non-inferiority to MVP gel for the presence of fetal heartbeats at 12 weeks of gestation (non-inferiority margin 10%).

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The standard of care for luteal phase support in IVF is the use of MVP; however, it is associated with vaginal irritation, discharge and poor patient compliance. Oral dydrogesterone may replace MVP as the standard of care if it is found to be efficacious with an acceptable safety profile.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Lotus II was a randomized, open-label, multicenter, Phase III, non-inferiority study conducted at 37 IVF centers in 10 countries worldwide, from August 2015 until May 2017. In total, 1034 premenopausal women (>18 to <42 years of age) undergoing IVF were randomized 1:1 (stratified by country and age group), using an Interactive Web Response System, to receive oral dydrogesterone 30 mg or 8% MVP gel 90 mg daily.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Subjects received either oral dydrogesterone (n = 520) or MVP gel (n = 514) on the day of oocyte retrieval, and luteal phase support continued until 12 weeks of gestation. The primary outcome measure was the presence of fetal heartbeats at 12 weeks of gestation, as determined by transvaginal ultrasound.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Non-inferiority of oral dydrogesterone was demonstrated, with pregnancy rates in the full analysis sample (FAS) at 12 weeks of gestation of 38.7% (191/494) and 35.0% (171/489) in the oral dydrogesterone and MVP gel groups, respectively (adjusted difference, 3.7%; 95% CI: −2.3 to 9.7). Live birth rates in the FAS of 34.4% (170/494) and 32.5% (159/489) were obtained for the oral dydrogesterone and MVP gel groups, respectively (adjusted difference 1.9%; 95% CI: −4.0 to 7.8). Oral dydrogesterone was well tolerated and had a similar safety profile to MVP gel.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The analysis of the results was powered to consider the ongoing pregnancy rate, but a primary objective of greater clinical interest may have been the live birth rate. This study was open-label as it was not technically feasible to make a placebo applicator for MVP gel, which may have increased the risk of bias for the subjective endpoints reported in this study. While the use of oral dydrogesterone in fresh-cycle IVF was investigated in this study, further research is needed to investigate its efficacy in programmed frozen-thawed cycles where corpora lutea do not exist.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This study demonstrates that oral dydrogesterone is a viable alternative to MVP gel, due to its comparable efficacy and tolerability profiles. Owing to its patient-friendly oral administration route, dydrogesterone may replace MVP as the standard of care for luteal phase support in fresh-cycle IVF.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS(S)

This study was sponsored and supported by Abbott. G.G. has received investigator fees from Abbott during the conduct of the study. Outside of this submitted work, G.G. has received non-financial support from MSD, Ferring, Merck-Serono, IBSA, Finox, TEVA, Glycotope and Gedeon Richter, as well as personal fees from MSD, Ferring, Merck-Serono, IBSA, Finox, TEVA, Glycotope, VitroLife, NMC Healthcare, ReprodWissen, Biosilu, Gedeon Richter and ZIVA. C.B. is the President of the Belgian Society of Reproductive Medicine (unpaid) and Section Editor of Reproductive BioMedicine Online. C.B. has received grants from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, participated in an MSD sponsored trial, and has received payment from Ferring, MSD, Biomérieux, Abbott and Merck for lectures. G.S. has no conflicts of interest to be declared. A.P. is the General Secretary of the Indian Society of Assisted Reproduction (2017–2018). B.D. is President of Pune Obstetric and Gynecological Society (2017–2018). D.-Z.Y. has no conflicts of interest to be declared. Z.-J.C. has no conflicts of interest to be declared. E.K. is an employee of Abbott Laboratories GmbH, Hannover, Germany and owns shares in Abbott. C.P.-F. is an employee of Abbott GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden, Germany and owns shares in Abbott. H.T.’s institution has received grants from Merck, MSD, Goodlife, Cook, Roche, Origio, Besins, Ferring and Mithra (now Allergan); and H.T. has received consultancy fees from Finox-Gedeon Richter, Merck, Ferring, Abbott and ObsEva.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02491437 (clinicaltrials.gov).

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

08 July 2015.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLLMENT

17 August 2015.

Evaluation of progestogen supplementation for luteal phase support in fresh in vitro fertilization cycles

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of progestogen supplementation in improving clinical pregnancy rates in women undergoing fresh IVF cycles and to compare different routes, start times, durations, and estrogen coadministration regimen.

DESIGN

Comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.

SETTING

University.

PATIENT(S)

Women undergoing fresh IVF cycles who did and did not receive progestogen supplementation.

INTERVENTION(S)

Summary odds ratios (ORs) were calculated by binomial logistic regression.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Clinical pregnancy rates.

RESULT(S)

Eighty-two articles (26,726 women) were included. Clinical pregnancy rates were increased by IM (OR = 4.57), vaginal (OR = 3.34), SC (OR = 3.36), or oral (OR = 2.57) progestogen supplementation versus no treatment. The greatest benefit was observed when progestogens were supplemented IM versus vaginally (OR = 1.37). The optimal time to commence administration was between oocyte retrieval and ET (OR = 1.31), with oocyte retrieval +1 day being most beneficial. Coadministration of estrogen had no benefit (OR = 1.33), whether progestogens were coadministered vaginally or IM. Clinical pregnancy rates were equivalent when progestogen supplementation was ceased after ≤3 weeks or continued for up to 12 weeks (OR = 1.06).

CONCLUSION(S)

This broad-ranging meta-analysis highlights the need to reevaluate current clinical practice. The use of progestogens in fresh IVF cycles is substantially beneficial to clinical pregnancy. Critically, the use of IM progestogens should not be dismissed, as it yielded the greatest clinical pregnancy rates. Pregnancy success was impacted by initiation of therapy, with 1 day after oocyte retrieval being optimal. There is little evidence to support coadministration of estrogen or prolonging progestogen treatment beyond 3 weeks.

Patient experience in a randomized trial of a weekly progesterone vaginal ring versus a daily progesterone gel for luteal support after in vitro fertilization

OBJECTIVE

To assess patient experience and convenience of using progesterone vaginal ring (VR) versus vaginal gel for women requiring luteal phase support during in vitro fertilization (IVF).

DESIGN

Post hoc analysis of a prospective, randomized, single-blind, multicenter, phase 3 clinical trial.

SETTING

Twenty-two U.S. IVF centers.

PATIENT(S)

Women undergoing IVF (N = 1,297).

INTERVENTION(S)

Randomization to weekly VR or daily gel the day after egg retrieval for up to 10 weeks, with fresh embryo transfer IVF per site-specific procedures.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Patient satisfaction questionnaire completed at final study visit.

RESULT(S)

In the women who were taking ≥1 dose of either VR (n = 647) or gel (n = 650), >97% reported that learning to use the formulation, remembering to take it at the correct time, and using it as prescribed was "easy" or "somewhat easy." More VR than gel users reported noninterference with daily activity (93.3% vs. 74.7%, P<.001), sexual comfort (80.3% vs. 67.8%, P<.001), and sexual desire (73.8% vs. 61.8%, P<.001), as well as not being bothered during sexual intercourse (66.9% vs. 39.2%, P<.001). More gel than VR users reported no difficulty with application (97.4% vs. 80.9%, P<.001). Among women who had previously used progesterone during IVF, more VR users than gel users preferred their currently assigned treatment to their previous treatment (91.4% vs. 83.0%, P=.03).

CONCLUSION(S)

Weekly progesterone VR and daily progesterone gel were easy to use, with limited impact on quality of life. Overall, the VR appeared to interfere less with daily life, social activities, and sexual activity although the gel was less difficult or stressful to apply.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00615251.

Hormonal medication in medically assisted reproduction: a systematic review of assessments from patients

Several hormonal fertility medications have comparable effectiveness. A literature review was conducted into patients' assessments regarding seven medication characteristics including 'side effects' and 'ease of use'. Medline, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched for female fertility patients' written assessments of a hormonal medication. The tools used were appraised and common (i.e. ≥10%) unpleasant consequences were distinguished from rare ones. The 35 eligible studies did not rely on valid and reliable tools and did not provide patient assessments regarding all seven medication characteristics for any of the globally used medications. Evidence on medications for oocyte triggering was absent and for induction of pituitary quiescence it was scarce. Regarding medications for ovarian stimulation and luteal support, evidence on general side effects (mostly headache), local side effects (mostly pain), 'interference with home life' and 'impact on psychological wellbeing' was found. Evidence on 'ease of use' and 'required education' was only identified for medication for ovarian stimulation. Evidence on 'interference with work life' and 'compliance worry' was absent. This review calls for randomized controlled trials questioning patients with valid and reliable tools. In the meantime, this review's summary of the best available evidence can be integrated in decision aids facilitating personalized and informed medication choices.

Endogenous progesterone levels could predict reproductive outcome in frozen embryo replacement cycles supplemented with synthetic progestogens: A retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

A retrospective, cohort study was conducted between 2009 and 2017 in a private infertility center to determine the predictive value of endogenous estrogen (E2) and progesterone (P4) levels in hormone-replacement frozen embryo replacement (FER) treatment cycles.

METHODS

A total of 120 consecutive, infertile patients who became pregnant after FER cycles were analyzed (age: 37.4 ± 4.4 years). Electively vitrified blastocysts were created during natural cycle IVF or mild ovarian stimulation treatments and subsequently transferred through delayed vitrified-thawed blastocyst transfer cycles supplemented with estrogens and a combination of synthetic progestogens. Serum E2 and progesterone P4 levels were intensively monitored every five days (from the day after embryo transfer until 9w1d of pregnancy) and compared among patients with a subsequent live birth (n = 76) or first-trimester pregnancy loss (n = 44).

RESULTS

Endogenous placental activity started as early as 5-6th pregnancy week differing significantly according to pregnancy outcome. For P4, the exponential rise from 6w2d onwards allowed distinguishing between failing and successful conceptions. For P4, lower quartiles of the live birth group did not intersect with upper quartiles of the miscarriage group.

CONCLUSIONS

Innovative FER protocols incorporating synthetic progestogens allow the correct measurement of endogenous placental activity and could help to monitor early first-trimester ART pregnancies.

Oral dydrogesterone for luteal phase support in fresh in vitro fertilization cycles: a new standard?

Oral dydrogesterone has been used for luteal phase support on an empirical basis since the early days of in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. Systematic comparisons of oral dydrogesterone with vaginal progesterone, so far considered to be the standard of care, started to appear in the middle 2000s. Recently, a large, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy phase III trial on the use of daily 30 mg oral dydrogesterone versus daily 600 mg micronized vaginal progesterone for LPS in IVF was published. This company-sponsored trial confirmed the efficacy findings from previous independent researchers and firmly established the noninferiority of daily 30 mg oral dydrogesterone for luteal phase support. Despite oral administration and first pass through the liver, dydrogesterone was as well tolerated as vaginal progesterone in safety analyses. Moreover, no new fetal safety concerns have arisen from that trial. Given the widespread preference of women for an oral compound, dydrogesterone may well become the new standard for luteal phase support in fresh embryo transfer IVF cycles.

Dydrogesterone: pharmacological profile and mechanism of action as luteal phase support in assisted reproduction

The pharmacological and physiological profiles of progestogens used for luteal phase support during assisted reproductive technology are likely to be important in guiding clinical choice towards the most appropriate treatment option. Various micronized progesterone formulations with differing pharmacological profiles have been investigated for several purposes. Dydrogesterone, a stereoisomer of progesterone, is available in an oral form with high oral bioavailability; it has been used to treat a variety of conditions related to progesterone deficiency since the 1960s and has recently been approved for luteal phase support as part of an assisted reproductive technology treatment. The primary objective of this review is to critically analyse the clinical implications of the pharmacological and physiological properties of dydrogesterone for its uses in luteal phase support and in early pregnancy.

A Phase III randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy, safety and tolerability of oral dydrogesterone versus micronized vaginal progesterone for luteal support in in vitro fertilization

STUDY QUESTION

Is oral dydrogesterone 30 mg daily (10 mg three times daily [TID]) non-inferior to micronized vaginal progesterone (MVP) 600 mg daily (200 mg TID) for luteal support in in vitro fertilization (IVF), assessed by the presence of fetal heartbeats determined by transvaginal ultrasound at 12 weeks of gestation?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Non-inferiority of oral dydrogesterone versus MVP was demonstrated at 12 weeks of gestation, with a difference in pregnancy rate and an associated confidence interval (CI) that were both within the non-inferiority margin.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

MVP is routinely used in most clinics for luteal support in IVF, but it is associated with side effects, such as vaginal irritation and discharge, as well as poor patient acceptance. Dydrogesterone may be an alternative treatment due to its patient-friendly oral administration.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Lotus I was an international Phase III randomized controlled trial, performed across 38 sites, from August 2013 to March 2016. Subjects were premenopausal women (>18 to <42 years of age; body mass index (BMI) ≥18 to ≤30 kg/m²) with a documented history of infertility who were planning to undergo IVF. A centralized electronic system was used for randomization, and the study investigators, sponsor's study team, and subjects remained blinded throughout the study.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

In total, 1031 subjects were randomized to receive either oral dydrogesterone (n = 520) or MVP (n = 511). Luteal support was started on the day of oocyte retrieval and continued until 12 weeks of gestation (Week 10), if a positive pregnancy test was obtained at 2 weeks after embryo transfer.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

In the full analysis set (FAS), 497 and 477 subjects in the oral dydrogesterone and MVP groups, respectively, had an embryo transfer. Non-inferiority of oral dydrogesterone was demonstrated, with pregnancy rates at 12 weeks of gestation of 37.6% and 33.1% in the oral dydrogesterone and MVP treatment groups, respectively (difference 4.7%; 95% CI: −1.2–10.6%). Live birth rates of 34.6% (172 mothers with 213 newborns) and 29.8% (142 mothers with 158 newborns) were obtained in the dydrogesterone and MVP groups, respectively (difference 4.9%; 95% CI: −0.8–10.7%). Oral dydrogesterone was well tolerated and had a similar safety profile to MVP.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The analysis of the results was powered to consider the clinical pregnancy rate, but the live birth rate may be of greater clinical interest. Conclusions relating to the differences between treatments in live birth rate, observed in this study, should therefore be made with caution.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Oral dydrogesterone may replace MVP as the standard of care for luteal phase support in IVF, owing to the oral route being more patient-friendly than intravaginal administration, as well as it being a well tolerated and efficacious treatment.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

Sponsored and supported by Abbott Established Pharmaceuticals Division. H.T.’s institution has received grants from Merck, MSD, Goodlife, Cook, Roche, Besins, Ferring and Mithra (now Allergan) and H.T. has received consultancy fees from Finox, Ferring, Abbott, ObsEva and Ovascience. G.S. has nothing to disclose. E.K. is an employee of Abbott GmbH. G.G. has received investigator fees from Abbott during the conduct of the study; outside of this submitted work, G.G. has received personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, Ferring, Merck-Serono, Finox, TEVA, Glycotope, as well as personal fees from VitroLife, NMC Healthcare LLC, ReprodWissen LLC and ZIVA LLC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01850030 (clinicaltrials.gov).

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

19 April 2013.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLLMENT

23 August 2013.

The role of progesterone therapy in early pregnancy: from physiological role to therapeutic utility

Progesterone is a steroid hormone of essential role in reproduction. In early pregnancy, it is responsible for preparation of endometrium for implantation process and maintenance of gestational sac in uterus, also by modulation of maternal immune system. Even though, several indices has been proposed as markers of endogenous progesterone synthesis (progesterone or luteinizing hormone measurements, endometrial biopsy), none has been proved to be reliable in detecting luteal phase defect. Currently, several pharmaceutical formulations are available, but in clinical setting the non-oral formulations seems to be effective in therapy. Progesterone is effective in the treatment of patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology procedure, as a luteal phase support. Some studies showed also its efficacy in the treatment of threatening or recurrent miscarriage, but newer trials neglected this beneficial effect. Due to controversies regarding utility of progesterone supplementation in these conditions, further studies are needed to address this issue.

Standards of Care in infertility in Europe

Evidence-based medicine is the principal approach to medical practice. There are several debatable issues in infertility, which require clarification. Over the past 20 years, reliable methodology has been developed for the management of infertile couples. This includes high quality diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, which are applied in highly specialised infertility centres. The European Board and College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (EBCOG) has published Standards of Care for Women's Health in Europe, which should be the cornerstone for the clinicians and service providers in the European Union to establish common protocols within their centres. Each infertility treatment should result in the highest possible success rate and all appropriate measures for the patient's safety should be in place. The treatment protocols should minimise risk of complications, such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). The current use of GnRH agonists to trigger final follicle maturation has provided the means for avoiding this syndrome. Additionally, multiple pregnancy rates are still high in assisted reproductive technology (ART). These rates should be reduced by the adoption of single embryo transfer during IVF treatment and by the proper monitoring of ovulation induction protocols. EBCOG Standards of Care for infertility and assisted conception treatment derived from the best available evidence should underpin the provision of high quality infertility services in European countries.

Dydrogesterone vs progesterone for luteal-phase support: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of dydrogesterone and progesterone for luteal-phase support (LPS) in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques (ART).

METHODS

We performed a systematic review to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by searching the following electronic databases: Cochrane CENTRAL, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN Registry and WHO ICTRP.

RESULTS

The last search was performed in October 2015. Eight RCTs were considered eligible and were included in the review and meta-analyses. There was no relevant difference between oral dydrogesterone and vaginal progesterone for LPS with respect to rate of ongoing pregnancy (risk ratio (RR), 1.04 (95% CI, 0.92-1.18); I(2) , 0%; seven RCTs, 3134 women), clinical pregnancy (RR, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.93-1.23); I(2) , 34%; eight RCTs, 3809 women) or miscarriage (RR, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.53-1.10); I(2) , 0%; seven RCTs, 906 clinical pregnancies). Two of the three studies reporting on dissatisfaction of treatment identified lower levels of dissatisfaction among women using oral dydrogesterone than among women using vaginal progesterone (oral dydrogesterone vs vaginal progesterone capsules: 2/79 (2.5%) vs 90/351 (25.6%), respectively; oral dydrogesterone vs vaginal progesterone gel: 19/411 (4.6%) vs 74/411 (18.0%), respectively). The third study showed no difference in dissatisfaction rate (oral dydrogesterone vs vaginal progesterone capsules: 8/96 (8.3%) vs 8/114 (7.0%), respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Oral dydrogesterone seems to be as effective as vaginal progesterone for LPS in ART cycles, and appears to be better tolerated . Copyright © 2015 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Natural Micronized Progesterone Sustained Release (SR) and Luteal Phase: Role Redefined!!

Role of progesterone in reproductive medicine is evolving with its suggested clinical role for the hormonal and nonhormonal actions in reproductive medicine. The main function of progesterone is to induce 'secretory' changes in endometrium that is further complimented by its immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory actions. It positively modulates PIBF, NK cells and HOXA 10 genes for better implantation. MHRA recommends Serum Progesterone levels ≥14ng/ml in the mid-luteal phase for supporting pregnancy adequately. Oral Natural Micronized Progesterone SR formulation represents a therapeutic advance in this direction offering 'therapeutic compliance' with oral formulation while avoiding the local side effects related to long-term patient compliance in reproductive disorders. The formulation offers round the clock efficiency and efficacy with single dose administration thereby improving patient convenience and compliance. This formulation has been marketed globally since 1986 utilizing the well validated drug delivery system involving Methylcellulose base. The clinical utility of this formulation is further suggested especially in various conditions related with luteal phase insufficiency and Bad obstetric history (BOH) or luteal phase support in ART. The level of evidence has been quite robust with several clinical studies including Prescription Event Monitoring and Investigator initiated studies supporting the clinical role of oral NMP SR formulation especially in 'Real world' clinic settings for Luteal phase insufficiency that may be physiological or iatrogenic.

A comparative study of dydrogesterone and micronized progesterone for luteal phase support during in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles

The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy, tolerability and patients' satisfaction after the use of oral dydrogesterone with vaginal micronized progesterone for luteal-phase support (LPS) among infertile women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF). A total of 210 women (aged 20-40 years old) with a history of infertility, who underwent controlled ovarian stimulation for fresh intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection-embryo transfer cycles, were included in the study. Consequently, they were randomized to receive LPS with dydrogesterone 20 mg twice daily (n = 96) or micronized progesterone 400 mg twice daily at the day of oocyte retrieval (n = 114). The clinical success rate (31% versus 33%; p = 0.888), miscarriage rate (5.0% versus 3.0%; p = 0.721), ongoing pregnancy rate (30.0% versus 30.0%; p = 1.000), implantation (22.0% versus 24.0%; p = 0.254) and multiple pregnancy rate (5.30% versus 7.20%; p = 0.394) were comparable among the two groups. Serum progesterone levels were significantly lower among the patients receiving dydrogesterone than the control group (13.62 ± 13.83 ng/ml versus 20.66 ± 18.09 ng/ml; p = 0.001). However, there was no statistically significant difference regarding the patients' satisfaction (p = 0.825) and tolerability (0.790) between the two groups. Our results showed that oral dydrogesterone (40 mg/day) is as effective as vaginal micronized progesterone considering its clinical outcomes and patients' satisfaction and tolerability, for LPS among women undergoing IVF.

Dydrogesterone use in early pregnancy

Successful oocyte implantation and a favorable pregnancy outcome rely on optimal progesterone levels. Therefore, progesterone deficiencies associated with infertility and miscarriage have commonly been treated with progestogens that mimic the activity of progesterone. Among those is dydrogesterone, an oral retrosteroid with a structure closely related to that of progesterone yet with a greater bioavailability and higher selectivity for the progesterone receptor. This review describes the efficacy of dydrogesterone for the treatment of threatened and recurrent miscarriage, and infertility due to luteal phase insufficiency. Data from clinical trials evaluating dydrogesterone in assisted reproductive technology are also discussed. Prospective clinical trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses have demonstrated that dydrogesterone significantly improves pregnancy outcomes in women with threatened miscarriage or with a history of miscarriage. Although this is not yet a registered indication, dydrogesterone was as effective as vaginal micronized progesterone for luteal phase support in the setting of assisted reproductive technology. The safety and tolerability of dydrogesterone treatment in pregnant women are also briefly addressed and the data support a well-established and favorable benefit-risk profile.

Luteal phase support for assisted reproduction cycles

BACKGROUND

Progesterone prepares the endometrium for pregnancy by stimulating proliferation in response to human chorionic gonadotropin(hCG) produced by the corpus luteum. This occurs in the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. In assisted reproduction techniques(ART), progesterone and/or hCG levels are low, so the luteal phase is supported with progesterone, hCG or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists to improve implantation and pregnancy rates.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the relative effectiveness and safety of methods of luteal phase support provided to subfertile women undergoing assisted reproduction.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched databases including the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and trial registers. We conducted searches in November 2014, and further searches on 4 August 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of luteal phase support using progesterone, hCG or GnRH agonist supplementation in ART cycles.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95%confidence intervals (CIs) for each comparison and combined data when appropriate using a fixed-effect model. Our primary out come was live birth or ongoing pregnancy. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

Ninety-four women RCTs (26,198 women) were included. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias in most domains. The main limitations in the evidence were poor reporting of study methods and imprecision due to small sample sizes.1. hCG vs placebo/no treatment (five RCTs, 746 women)There was no evidence of differences between groups in live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.12, three RCTs,527 women, I2 = 24%, very low-quality evidence, but I2 of 61% was found for the subgroup of ongoing pregnancy) with a random effects model. hCG increased the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (1 RCT, OR 4.28, 95% CI 1.91 to 9.6, low quality evidence).2. Progesterone vs placebo/no treatment (eight RCTs, 875 women)Evidence suggests a higher rate of live birth or ongoing pregnancy in the progesterone group (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.86, five RCTs, 642 women, I2 = 35%, very low-quality evidence). OHSS was not reported.3. Progesterone vs hCG regimens (16 RCTs, 2162 women)hCG regimens included comparisons of progesterone versus hCG and progesterone versus progesterone + hCG. No evidence showed differences between groups in live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.38, five RCTs, 833 women, I2 = 0%, low quality evidence) or in the risk of OHSS (four RCTs, 615 women, progesterone vs hCG OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.34; four RCTs,678 women; progesterone vs progesterone plus hCG, OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.26, low-quality evidence).4. Progesterone vs progesterone with oestrogen (16 RCTs, 2577 women)No evidence was found of differences between groups in live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.38, nine RCTs,1651 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence) or OHSS (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.63, two RCTs, 461 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence).5. Progesterone vs progesterone + GnRH agonist (seven RCTs, 1708 women)Live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates were lower in the progesterone-only group and increased in women who received progester one and one or more GnRH agonist doses (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.81, nine RCTs, 2861 women, I2 = 55%, random effects, low quality evidence). Statistical heterogeneity for this comparison was high because of unexplained variation in the effect size, but the direction of effect was consistent across studies. OHSS was reported in one study only (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 3.01, 1 RCT, 300 women, very low quality evidence).6. Progesterone regimens (45 RCTs, 13,814 women)The included studies reported nine different comparisons between progesterone regimens. Findings for live birth or ongoing pregnancy were as follows: intramuscular (IM) versus oral: OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.66 (one RCT, 40 women, very low-quality evidence);IM versus vaginal/rectal: OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.5 (seven RCTs, 2309 women, I2 = 71%, very low-quality evidence); vaginal/rectal versus oral: OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.69 (four RCTs, 857 women, I2 = 32%, low-quality evidence); low-dose versus high-dose vaginal: OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11 (five RCTs, 3720 women, I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence); short versus long protocol:OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.36 (five RCTs, 1205 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence); micronised versus synthetic: OR 0.9, 95%CI 0.53 to 1.55 (two RCTs, 470 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence); vaginal ring versus gel: OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.36 (oneRCT, 1271 women, low-quality evidence); subcutaneous versus vaginal gel: OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14 (two RCTs, 1465 women,I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence); and vaginal versus rectal: OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.54 (one RCT, 147 women, very low-quality evidence). OHSS rates were reported for only two of these comparisons: IM versus oral, and low versus high-dose vaginal. No evidence showed a difference between groups.7. Progesterone and oestrogen regimens (two RCTs, 1195 women)The included studies compared two different oestrogen protocols. No evidence was found to suggest differences in live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates between a short and a long protocol (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.43, one RCT, 910 women, low-quality evidence) or between a low dose and a high dose of oestrogen (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.13, one RCT, 285 women, very low-quality evidence).Neither study reported OHSS.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Both progesterone and hCG during the luteal phase are associated with higher rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy than placebo.The addition of GnRHa to progesterone is associated with an improvement in pregnancy outcomes. OHSS rates are increased with hCG compared to placebo (only study only). The addition of oestrogen does not seem to improve outcomes. The route of progester one administration is not associated with an improvement in outcomes.

Overlooked mountain rock pools in deserts are critical local hotspots of biodiversity

BACKGROUND

The world is undergoing exceptional biodiversity loss. Most conservation efforts target biodiversity hotspots at large scales. Such approach overlooks small-sized local hotspots, which may be rich in endemic and highly threatened species. We explore the importance of mountain rock pools (gueltas) as local biodiversity hotspots in the Sahara-Sahel. Specifically, we considered how many vertebrates (total and endemics) use gueltas, what factors predict species richness, and which gueltas are of most priority for conservation. We expected to provide management recommendations, improve local biodiversity conservation, and simultaneously contribute with a framework for future enhancement of local communities' economy. The identification of local hotspots of biodiversity is important for revaluating global conservation priorities.

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We quantified the number of vertebrate species from each taxonomic group and endemics present in 69 gueltas in Mauritania, then compared these with species present in a surrounding area and recorded in the country. We evaluated the predictors of species number's present in each guelta through a multiple regression model. We ranked gueltas by their priority for conservation taking into account the percentage of endemics and threats to each guelta. Within a mere aggregate extent of 43 ha, gueltas hold about 32% and 78% of the total taxa analysed and endemics of Mauritania, respectively. The number of species present in each guelta increased with the primary productivity and area of gueltas and occurrence of permanent water. Droughts and human activities threaten gueltas, while 64% of them are currently unprotected.

CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE

Gueltas are crucial for local biodiversity conservation and human activities. They require urgent management plans in Mauritania's mountains. They could provide refugia under climate change being important for long-term conservation of Sahara-Sahel biodiversity. Given their disproportional importance in relation to their size, they are local hotspots of biodiversity deserving global attention.