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...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |