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 effec...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Georg Griesinger, Christophe Blockeel, Elke Kahler, Claire Pexman-Fieth, Jan I Olofsson, Stefan Driessen, Herman Tournaye
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2020-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241044
id doaj-21c178fccef2420a9d11a1a2dc6ae70c
record_format Article
spelling doaj-21c178fccef2420a9d11a1a2dc6ae70c2021-03-04T12:25:30ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032020-01-011511e024104410.1371/journal.pone.0241044Dydrogesterone as an oral alternative to vaginal progesterone for IVF luteal phase support: A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.Georg GriesingerChristophe BlockeelElke KahlerClaire Pexman-FiethJan I OlofssonStefan DriessenHerman TournayeThe 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.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241044
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Georg Griesinger
Christophe Blockeel
Elke Kahler
Claire Pexman-Fieth
Jan I Olofsson
Stefan Driessen
Herman Tournaye
spellingShingle Georg Griesinger
Christophe Blockeel
Elke Kahler
Claire Pexman-Fieth
Jan I Olofsson
Stefan Driessen
Herman Tournaye
Dydrogesterone as an oral alternative to vaginal progesterone for IVF luteal phase support: A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Georg Griesinger
Christophe Blockeel
Elke Kahler
Claire Pexman-Fieth
Jan I Olofsson
Stefan Driessen
Herman Tournaye
author_sort Georg Griesinger
title Dydrogesterone as an oral alternative to vaginal progesterone for IVF luteal phase support: A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.
title_short Dydrogesterone as an oral alternative to vaginal progesterone for IVF luteal phase support: A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.
title_full Dydrogesterone as an oral alternative to vaginal progesterone for IVF luteal phase support: A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.
title_fullStr Dydrogesterone as an oral alternative to vaginal progesterone for IVF luteal phase support: A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.
title_full_unstemmed Dydrogesterone as an oral alternative to vaginal progesterone for IVF luteal phase support: A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.
title_sort dydrogesterone as an oral alternative to vaginal progesterone for ivf luteal phase support: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2020-01-01
description 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.
url https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241044
work_keys_str_mv AT georggriesinger dydrogesteroneasanoralalternativetovaginalprogesteroneforivflutealphasesupportasystematicreviewandindividualparticipantdatametaanalysis
AT christopheblockeel dydrogesteroneasanoralalternativetovaginalprogesteroneforivflutealphasesupportasystematicreviewandindividualparticipantdatametaanalysis
AT elkekahler dydrogesteroneasanoralalternativetovaginalprogesteroneforivflutealphasesupportasystematicreviewandindividualparticipantdatametaanalysis
AT clairepexmanfieth dydrogesteroneasanoralalternativetovaginalprogesteroneforivflutealphasesupportasystematicreviewandindividualparticipantdatametaanalysis
AT janiolofsson dydrogesteroneasanoralalternativetovaginalprogesteroneforivflutealphasesupportasystematicreviewandindividualparticipantdatametaanalysis
AT stefandriessen dydrogesteroneasanoralalternativetovaginalprogesteroneforivflutealphasesupportasystematicreviewandindividualparticipantdatametaanalysis
AT hermantournaye dydrogesteroneasanoralalternativetovaginalprogesteroneforivflutealphasesupportasystematicreviewandindividualparticipantdatametaanalysis
_version_ 1714802823521107968