Volume 11, Issue 11 (12-2013)                   IJRM 2013, 11(11): 913-0 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Salehpour S, Tamimi M, Saharkhiz N. Comparison of oral dydrogesterone with suppository vaginal progesterone for luteal-phase support in IVF (in vitro fertilization): A randomized clinical trial. IJRM 2013; 11 (11) :913-0
URL: http://ijrm.ir/article-1-359-en.html
Comparison of oral dydrogesterone with suppository vaginal progesterone for luteal-phase support in IVF (in vitro fertilization): A randomized clinical trial
Saghar Salehpour * 1, Maryam Tamimi2 , Nasrin Saharkhiz2
1- Infertility and Reproductive Health Research Center (IRHRC), IVF Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran , saghar.salehpour@yahoo.com
2- Infertility and Reproductive Health Research Center (IRHRC), IVF Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Abstract:   (2952 Views)
Background: Luteal phase support is mandatory in ART (Assisted Reproductive Technologies) for optimizing outcome, so the luteal phase is supported with either progesterone, addition of estradiol to progesterone, hCG or gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists. Supplementation of luteal phase with progesterone is prescribed for women undergoing routine IVF treatment.
Objective: To compare oral dydrogestrone with vaginal progesterone for luteal-phase support in IVF.
Materials and Methods: We performed this prospective, randomized trial in a tertiary infertility care unit in Taleghani hospital, Tehran, Iran. 80 Women with a history of male factor infertility undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation for IVF treatment (fresh cycle) randomly were divided in two groups (group A or oral dydrogesterone group and group B or vaginal progesterone group). The inclusion criteria were the use of GnRH analogue down-regulation and less than 40 years old with regular menstrual cycles. All women were euthyroid and normoprolactinemic. Group A (n=40) received 10 mg dydrogesterone QID (40mg daily) and group B (n=40) received 400 mg suppository vaginal Progesterone (cyclogest) twice per day (800 mg daily).
Results: Clinical pregnancy rate in cyclogest group was higher than dydrogesterone group but the difference was not significant (p=0.52), furthermore the miscarriage rate in two group was the same .The difference between two groups regarding antral follicle, embryo number, luteal-phase duration, endometrial thickness ,oocyte number and metaphase-II was not significant (p>0.05).
Conclusion: The results showed that oral dydrogesterone is as effective as vaginal progesterone for luteal-phase support in women undergoing IVF.
Keywords: In Vitro Fertilization, Luteal-phase support, Dydrogesterone, Vaginal progesterone.
Full-Text [PDF 344 kb]   (632 Downloads) |   |   Full-Text (HTML)  (478 Views)  
Type of Study: Original Article |
References
1. Fauser BC, Devroey P. Reproductive biology and IVF: ovarian stimulation and luteal phase consequences. Trends Endocrinol Metab 2003; 14: 236-242 [DOI:10.1016/S1043-2760(03)00075-4]
2. Devroey P, Bourgain C, Macklon NS, Fauser BC. Reproductive biology and IVF: ovarian stimulation and endometrial receptivity. Trends Endocrinol Metab 2004; 15: 84-90 [DOI:10.1016/j.tem.2004.01.009]
3. Beckers NGM, Macklon NS, Eijkemans MJC. Comparison of the nonsupplemented luteal phase characteristics after recombinant (r) HCG, rLH or GnRH agonist for oocyte maturation in IVF. Hum Reprod 2002; 17 (Suppl.): 55.
4. Penarrubia J, Balasch J, Fábregues F, Creus M, Casamitjana R, Ballescá JL, et al. Human chorionic gonadotrophin luteal support overcomes luteal phase inadequacy after gonadotrophin releasing hormone agonist-induced ovulation in gonadotrophin stimulated cycles. Hum Reprod 1998; 13: 3315-3318. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/13.12.3315]
5. Albano C, Grimbizis G, Smitz J, Riethmüller-Winzen H, Reissmann T, Van Steirteghem A, et al. The luteal phase of nonsupplemented cycles after ovarian superovulation with human menopausal gonadotropin and the gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonist Cetrorelix. Fertil Steril 1998; 70: 357-359. [DOI:10.1016/S0015-0282(98)00135-6]
6. Ottoson UB, Johansson BG, von Schoultz B. Subfractions of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol during estrogen replacement therapy: a comparison between progestogens and natural progesterone. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 151: 746-750. [DOI:10.1016/0002-9378(85)90509-5]
7. Pritts E, Atwood A. Luteal phase support in infertility treat- ment: a meta-analysis of the randomized trials. Hum Reprod 2002; 7: 2287-2299. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/17.9.2287]
8. Daya S, Gunby J. Luteal phase support in assisted reproduc-tion cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; CD004830.
9. Nosarka S, Kruger T, Siebert I, Grové D. Luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization: metaanalysis of randomized trials. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2005; 60: 67. [DOI:10.1159/000084546]
10. Penzias AS. Luteal phase support. Fertil Steril 2002; 77: 318-323. [DOI:10.1016/S0015-0282(01)02961-2]
11. Daya S, Gunby J. Luteal phase support in assisted reproduction cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004: CD004830. [DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD004830]
12. Abu-Musa A, Hannoun A, Khalil A, Masaad Z, Karam K. Artificial endometrial preparation for oocyte donation using synthetic estrogen and progestogen. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 1998; 25: 83-85.
13. Howard C. A systematic review of dydrogesterone for the treatment of threatened miscarriage. Gynecol Endocrinol 2012; 28: 983-990. [DOI:10.3109/09513590.2012.702875]
14. Queisser-Luft A. Dydrogesterone use during pregnancy: overview of birth defects reported since 1977. Early Hum Dev 2009; 85: 375-377. [DOI:10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2008.12.016]
15. Patki A, Pawar VC. Modulating fertility outcome in assisted reproductive technologies by the use of dydrogesterone. Gynecol Endocrinol 2007; 23: 68-72. [DOI:10.1080/09513590701584857]
16. Levine H, Watson N. Comparison of the pharmacokinetics of Crinone 8% administered vaginally versus Prometrium administered orally in postmenopausal women. Fertil Steril 2000; 73: 516-521. [DOI:10.1016/S0015-0282(99)00553-1]
17. Zarutskie PW, Kuzan FB, Dixon L, Soules MR. Endocrine changes in the late-follicular and postovulatory intervals as determinants of the in vitrofertilization pregnancy rate. Fertil Steril 1987; 47: 137-143. [DOI:10.1016/S0015-0282(16)49949-8]
18. The Practice Committee of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine. Progesterone supplementation during the luteal phase and in early pregnancy in the treatment of infertility: an educational bulletin. Fertil Steril 2008; 89: 789-792. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.02.012]
19. Hubayter Z, Muasher S. Luteal supplementation in in-vitro fertilization: more questions than answers. Fertil Steril 2008; 894: 749-758. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.02.095]
20. Chang SP. Comparison of Crinone 8% intravaginalgel and intramuscular progesterone for luteal support in in vitro fertilization. J Chin Med Assoc 2008; 71: 381-385. [DOI:10.1016/S1726-4901(08)70087-X]
21. Vaisbuch E, Leong M, Shoham Z. Progesterone support in IVF: is evidence-based medicine translated to clinical practice? A worldwide web-based survey. Reprod Biomed Online 2012; 25: 139-145. [DOI:10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.04.005]
22. Chakravarty BN, Shirazee HH, Dam P, Goswami SK, Chatterjee R, Ghosh S. Oral dydrogesterone versus intravaginalmicronised progesterone as luteal phase support in assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles: results of a randomised study. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 2005; 97: 416-420. [DOI:10.1016/j.jsbmb.2005.08.012]
23. Ganesh A, Chakravorty N, Mukherjee R, Goswami S, Chaudhury K, Chakravarty B. Comparison of oral dydrogestrone with progesterone gel and micronized progesterone for luteal support in 1,373 women undergoing in vitro fertilization: a randomized clinical study. Fertil Steril 2011; 95: 1961-1965 [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.01.148]
24. Inizi STA, Asaad M, et al. Luteal phase support in in-vitro fertilization. Middle East Fertil Soc J 2006; 11: 64-69.
25. Norman TR, Morse CA, Dennerstein L. Comparative bioavailability of orally and vaginally administered progesterone. Fertil Steril 1991; 56: 1034-1039. [DOI:10.1016/S0015-0282(16)54713-X]
26. Domitrz JWS, Wołczyński S, Syrewicz M, Szamatowicz J, Kuczyński W,Grochowski D, et al. The comparison of efficiency of supplement of the second phase in the program IVF-ET by dydrogesterone and progesterone. Ginekol Pol 1999; 70: 8-12.
27. Fatemi HM, Bourgain C, Donoso P, Blockeel C, Papanikolaou EG, Popovic-Todorovic B, et al. Effect of oral administration of dydrogestrone versus vaginal administration of natural micronized progesterone on the secretory transformation of endometrium and luteal endocrine profile in patients with premature ovarian failure: a proof of concept. Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 1260-1263. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/del520]
Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb