The Impact of Oral Intake of Dydrogesterone on Fetal Heart Development During Early Pregnancy

Impact of dydrogesterone use in cycles with low progesterone levels on the day of frozen embryo transfer

PURPOSE

This study aims to evaluate whether the clinical outcomes of cycles with frozen embryo transfer (FET) in hormonal replacement treatment supplemented with dydrogesterone (DYD) following detection of low circulating levels of progesterone (P4) were comparable to the results of cycles with otherwise normal serum P4 values.

METHODS

Extended analyses of a retrospective cohort that included FET cycles performed between July 2019 and March 2022 after a cycle of artificial endometrial preparation using valerate-estradiol and micronized vaginal P4 (400 mg twice daily). Whenever the serum P4 value was considered low on the morning of the planned transfer, 10 mg of DYD three times a day was added as a supplement. Only single-embryo transfers of a blastocyst were considered. The primary endpoint was live birth rate.

RESULTS

Five-hundred thirty-five FET cycles were analyzed, of which 136 (25.4%) underwent treatment with DYD. There were 337 pregnancies (63%), 207 live births (38.6%), and 130 miscarriages (38.5%). The P4 values could be modeled by a gamma distribution, with a mean of 14.5 ng/ml and a standard deviation of 1.95 ng/ml. The variables female age on the day of FET, ethnicity, and weight were associated with a variation in the serum P4 values. There were no differences in the results between cycles with or without the indication for DYD supplementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Live birth rate did not vary significantly in females with low and normal serum P4 levels on the day of FET when DYD was used as rescue therapy.

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.

Oral micronized progesterone versus vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in fresh embryo transfer cycles: a multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority trial

STUDY QUESTION

Does oral micronized progesterone result in a non-inferior ongoing pregnancy rate compared to vaginal progesterone gel as luteal phase support (LPS) in fresh embryo transfer cycles?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The ongoing pregnancy rate in the group administered oral micronized progesterone 400 mg per day was non-inferior to that in the group administered vaginal progesterone gel 90 mg per day.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

LPS is an integrated component of fresh IVF, for which an optimal treatment regimen is still lacking. The high cost and administration route of the commonly used vaginal progesterone make it less acceptable than oral micronized progesterone; however, the efficacy of oral micronized progesterone is unclear owing to concerns regarding its low bioavailability after the hepatic first pass.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This non-inferiority randomized trial was conducted in eight academic fertility centers in China from November 2018 to November 2019. The follow-up was completed in April 2021.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

A total of 1310 infertile women who underwent their first or second IVF cycles were enrolled. On the day of hCG administration, the patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups for LPS: oral micronized progesterone 400 mg/day (n = 430), oral micronized progesterone 600 mg/day (n = 440) or vaginal progesterone 90 mg/day (n = 440). LPS was started on the day of oocyte retrieval and continued till 11-12 weeks of gestation. The primary outcome was the rate of ongoing pregnancy.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

In the intention-to-treat analysis, the rate of ongoing pregnancy in the oral micronized progesterone 400 mg/day group was non-inferior to that of the vaginal progesterone gel group [35.3% versus 38.0%, absolute difference (AD): -2.6%; 95% CI: -9.0% to 3.8%, P-value for non-inferiority test: 0.010]. There was insufficient evidence to support the non-inferiority in the rate of ongoing pregnancy between the oral micronized progesterone 600 mg/day group and the vaginal progesterone gel group (31.6% versus 38.0%, AD: -6.4%; 95% CI: -12.6% to -0.1%, P-value for non-inferiority test: 0.130). In addition, we did not observe a statistically significant difference in the rate of live births between the groups.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The primary outcome of our trial was the ongoing pregnancy rate; however, the live birth rate may be of greater clinical interest. Although the results did not show a difference in the rate of live births, they should be confirmed by further trials with larger sample sizes. In addition, in this study, final oocyte maturation was triggered by hCG, and the findings may not be extrapolatable to cycles with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist triggers.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Oral micronized progesterone 400 mg/day may be an alternative to vaginal progesterone gel in patients reluctant to accept the vaginal route of administration. However, whether a higher dose of oral micronized progesterone is associated with a poorer pregnancy rate or a higher rate of preterm delivery warrants further investigation.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This research was supported by a grant from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (82071718). None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

This trial was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (http://www.chictr.org.cn/) with the number ChiCTR1800015958.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

May 2018.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

November 2018.

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.

Low serum progesterone affects live birth rate in cryopreserved blastocyst transfer cycles using hormone replacement therapy

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does serum progesterone concentration on the day of vitrified-warmed embryo transfer affect live birth rate (LBR) with hormonal replacement therapy (HRT) cycles?

DESIGN

Observational cohort study of patients (n = 915) undergoing single autologous vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer under HRT using vaginal micronized progesterone. Women were included once, between January 2019 and March 2020. Serum progesterone concentration was measured by a single laboratory on the morning of embryo transfer. The primary end point was LBR. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

Median (25th-75th percentile) serum progesterone concentration on the day of embryo transfer was 12.5 ng/ml (9.8-15.3). The LBR was 31.5% (288/915) in the overall population. No significant differences were found in implantation rates (40.7% versus 44.9%); LBR was significantly lower in women with a progesterone concentration ≤25th percentile (≤9.8 ng/ml) (26.1% versus 33.2%, P = 0.045) versus women with a progesterone concentration >25th percentile. This correlated with a significantly higher early miscarriage rate (35.9% versus 21.6%, P = 0.005). After adjusting for potential confounding factors in multivariate analysis, low serum progesterone levels (≤9.8 ng/ml) remained significantly associated with lower LBR (OR 0.68 95% CI 0.48 to 0.97).

CONCLUSION

A minimum serum progesterone concentration is needed to optimize reproductive outcomes in HRT cycles with single autologous vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer. Whether modifications of progesterone administration routes, dosage, or both, can improve pregnancy rates needs further study so that treatment of patients undergoing HRT cycles can be further individualized.

Luteal-phase support in assisted reproductive technology: An ongoing challenge

It has been shown that in controlled ovarian hyper stimulation cycles, defective luteal phase is common. There are many protocols for improving pregnancy outcomes in women undergoing fresh and frozen in vitro fertilization cycles. These approaches include progesterone supplements, human chorionic gonadotropin, estradiol, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist, and recombinant luteinizing hormone. The main challenge is luteal-phase support (LPS) in cycles with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist triggering. There is still controversy about the optimal component and time for starting LPS in assisted reproductive technology cycles. This review aims to summarize the various protocols suggested for LPS in in vitro fertilization cycles.

Micronized progesterone plus dydrogesterone versus micronized progesterone alone for luteal phase support in frozen-thawed cycles (MIDRONE): a prospective cohort study

STUDY QUESTION

Does the addition of oral dydrogesterone to vaginal progesterone as luteal phase support improve pregnancy outcomes during frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles compared with vaginal progesterone alone?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Luteal phase support with oral dydrogesterone added to vaginal progesterone had a higher live birth rate and lower miscarriage rate compared with vaginal progesterone alone.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Progesterone is an important hormone that triggers secretory transformation of the endometrium to allow implantation of the embryo. During IVF, exogenous progesterone is administered for luteal phase support. However, there is wide inter-individual variation in absorption of progesterone via the vaginal wall. Oral dydrogesterone is effective and well tolerated when used to provide luteal phase support after fresh embryo transfer. However, there are currently no data on the effectiveness of luteal phase support with the combination of dydrogesterone with vaginal micronized progesterone compared with vaginal micronized progesterone after FET.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Prospective cohort study conducted at an academic infertility center in Vietnam from 26 June 2019 to 30 March 2020.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

We studied 1364 women undergoing IVF with FET. Luteal support was started when endometrial thickness reached ≥8 mm. The luteal support regimen was either vaginal micronized progesterone 400 mg twice daily plus oral dydrogesterone 10 mg twice daily (second part of the study) or vaginal micronized progesterone 400 mg twice daily (first 4 months of the study). In women with a positive pregnancy test, the appropriate luteal phase support regimen was continued until 7 weeks' gestation. The primary endpoint was live birth after the first FET of the started cycle, with miscarriage <12 weeks as one of the secondary endpoints.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The vaginal progesterone + dydrogesterone group and vaginal progesterone groups included 732 and 632 participants, respectively. Live birth rates were 46.3% versus 41.3%, respectively (rate ratio [RR] 1.12, 95% CI 0.99-1.27, P = 0.06; multivariate analysis RR 1.30 (95% CI 1.01-1.68), P = 0.042), with a statistically significant lower rate of miscarriage at <12 weeks in the progesterone + dydrogesterone versus progesterone group (3.4% versus 6.6%; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32-0.83; P = 0.009). Birth weight of both singletons (2971.0 ± 628.4 versus 3118.8 ± 559.2 g; P = 0.004) and twins (2175.5 ± 494.8 versus 2494.2 ± 584.7; P = 0.002) was significantly lower in the progesterone plus dydrogesterone versus progesterone group.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The main limitations of the study were the open-label design and the non-randomized nature of the sequential administration of study treatments. However, our systematic comparison of the two strategies was able to be performed much more rapidly than a conventional randomized controlled trial. In addition, the single ethnicity population limits external generalizability.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Our findings study suggest a role for oral dydrogesterone in addition to vaginal progesterone as luteal phase support in FET cycles to reduce the miscarriage rate and improve the live birth rate. Carefully planned prospective cohort studies with limited bias could be used as an alternative to randomized controlled clinical trials to inform clinical practice.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

This study received no external funding. LNV has received speaker and conference fees from Merck, grant, speaker and conference fees from Merck Sharpe and Dohme, and speaker, conference and scientific board fees from Ferring; TMH has received speaker fees from Merck, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and Ferring; R.J.N. has received scientific board fees from Ferring and receives grant funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia; BWM has acted as a paid consultant to Merck, ObsEva and Guerbet, and is the recipient of grant money from an NHMRC Investigator Grant.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT0399876.

Early-Pregnancy Dydrogesterone Supplementation Mimicking Luteal-Phase Support in ART Patients Did Not Provoke Major Reproductive Disorders in Pregnant Mice and Their Progeny

Progestogens are frequently administered during early pregnancy to patients undergoing assisted reproductive techniques (ART) to overcome progesterone deficits following ART procedures. Orally administered dydrogesterone (DG) shows equal efficacy to other progestogens with a higher level of patient compliance. However, potential harmful effects of DG on critical pregnancy processes and on the health of the progeny are not yet completely ruled out. We treated pregnant mice with DG in the mode, duration, and doses comparable to ART patients. Subsequently, we studied DG effects on embryo implantation, placental and fetal growth, fetal-maternal circulation, fetal survival, and the uterine immune status. After birth of in utero DG-exposed progeny, we assessed their sex ratios, weight gain, and reproductive performance. Early-pregnancy DG administration did not interfere with placental and fetal development, fetal-maternal circulation, or fetal survival, and provoked only minor changes in the uterine immune compartment. DG-exposed offspring grew normally, were fertile, and showed no reproductive abnormalities with the exception of an altered spermiogram in male progeny. Notably, DG shifted the sex ratio in favor of female progeny. Even though our data may be reassuring for the use of DG in ART patients, the detrimental effects on spermatogenesis in mice warrants further investigations and may be a reason for caution for routine DG supplementation in early pregnancy.

Sporadic miscarriage: evidence to provide effective care

The physical and psychological effect of miscarriage is commonly underappreciated. The journey from diagnosis of miscarriage, through clinical management, to supportive aftercare can be challenging for women, their partners, and caregivers. Diagnostic challenges can lead to delayed or ineffective care and increased anxiety. Inaccurate diagnosis of a miscarriage can result in the unintended termination of a wanted pregnancy. Uncertainty about the therapeutic effects of interventions can lead to suboptimal care, with variations across facilities and countries. For this Series paper, we have developed recommendations for practice from a literature review, appraisal of guidelines, and expert group discussions. The recommendations are grouped into three categories: (1) diagnosis of miscarriage, (2) prevention of miscarriage in women with early pregnancy bleeding, and (3) management of miscarriage. We recommend that every country reports annual aggregate miscarriage data, similarly to the reporting of stillbirth. Early pregnancy services need to focus on providing an effective ultrasound service, as it is central to the diagnosis of miscarriage, and be able to provide expectant management of miscarriage, medical management with mifepristone and misoprostol, and surgical management with manual vacuum aspiration. Women with the dual risk factors of early pregnancy bleeding and a history of previous miscarriage can be recommended vaginal micronised progesterone to improve the prospects of livebirth. We urge health-care funders and providers to invest in early pregnancy care, with specific focus on training for clinical nurse specialists and doctors to provide comprehensive miscarriage care within the setting of dedicated early pregnancy units.

Comparison of vaginal progesterone gel combined with oral dydrogesterone versus intramuscular progesterone for luteal support in hormone replacement therapy-frozen embryo transfer cycle

BACKGROUND

It remains under subject of debate regarding the optimal route of luteal support for hormone replacement therapy- frozen embryo transfer (HRT-FET) cycles. We compared efficacy of vaginal progesterone gel combined with oral dydrogesterone and intramuscular progesterone for HRT-FET lutein support.

METHODS

This is a retrospective observational study. After matching for propensity score of getting vaginal + oral treatment, a total of 208 FET cycles in the vaginal progesterone combined with oral dydrogesterone and 624 cycles in the intramuscular progesterone group were enrolled. Pregnancy outcomes and neonatal outcomes including chemical pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, implantation rate, spontaneous abortion rate, live birth rate, gestational weeks, pre-term delivery, birth weight, and congenital anomalies rate were compared.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed in patient characteristics such as age, duration of infertility, type of infertility, or hormone level after matching. Chemical pregnancy rate (68.3 % versus 70.5 %), clinical pregnancy rate (64.9 % versus 64.4 %), implantation rate (52.3 % versus 50.2 %), spontaneous abortion rate (21.5 % versus 18.4 %), and live birth rate (49.0 % versus 51.3 %) were similar in both group without statistically significant difference. No significant differences in neonatal outcomes were observed between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

We observed similar pregnancy outcomes in both vaginal progesterone gel combined with oral dydrogesterone and intramuscular progesterone protocol. Vaginal progesterone gel combined with oral dydrogesterone can be substituted for intramuscular progesterone given that vaginal plus oral use has good safety and is more convenient and may be associated with less side effect caused by intramuscular injection.

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.

WITHDRAWN: Hypospadias induced by medications and environmental exposures- A scoping review

This article has been withdrawn as the request of the author(s) and/or Editors. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause.

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.

Regarding the evidence-based use of micronized progesterone

An issue of habitual miscarriage poses a high social importance especially during COVID-19 pandemic. Meanwhile, healthcareworkers faced a mass media campaign against using micronized progesterone upon habitual miscarriage, which, as viewed by us, displays signs of prejudiced data manipulation and may disorient practitioners. In this Letter we provide objective information on accumulated data regarding gestagenes efficacy and safety. We invoke healthcare professionals to make decisions deserving independent primary source trust presented by original scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals, clinical recommendations proposed by professional medical communities as well as treatment standards and protocols.

Sporadic pregnancy loss and recurrent miscarriage

Progesterone is essential for the maintenance of pregnancy, and progesterone deficiency is associated with miscarriage. The subject of whether progesterone supplementation in early pregnancy can prevent miscarriage has been a long-standing research question and has been investigated and debated in the medical literature for over 70 years. During this time, several different progestogens have been synthesised and tested for the prevention of miscarriage. In this chapter, we describe the prior evidence alongside the latest research using micronized natural progesterone as well as synthetic progestogens, which were used to treat both recurrent and threatened miscarriage. The totality of evidence indicates that women with a past history of miscarriage who present with bleeding in early pregnancy may benefit from the use of vaginal micronized progesterone. The clinical implications of the findings are discussed.

Novel approach using serum progesterone as a triage to guide management of patients with threatened miscarriage: a prospective cohort study

Threatened miscarriage is a common gynaecological emergency, with up to 25% of women eventually progressing to spontaneous miscarriage. The uncertainty of pregnancy outcomes results in significant anxiety. However, there is currently no acceptable framework for triaging patients presenting with threatened miscarriage. We aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a novel clinical protocol using a single serum progesterone level to prognosticate and guide management of patients with threatened miscarriage. 1087 women presenting with threatened miscarriage were enrolled in the study. The primary outcome was spontaneous miscarriage by 16 weeks’ gestation. Among the 77.9% (847/1087) of study participants with serum progesterone ≥ 35 nmol/L who were not treated with oral dydrogesterone, the miscarriage rate was 9.6% (81/847). This did not differ significantly from the 8.5% (31/364) miscarriage rate observed in our prior studies; p = 0.566. Among women with serum progesterone < 35 nmol/L who were treated with dydrogesterone, the miscarriage rate was 70.8% (170/240). Our novel clinical triage protocol using a single serum progesterone level allowed both effective risk stratification and a reduction in progestogen use with no significant adverse pregnancy outcomes. This protocol, based on a single serum progesterone cutoff, can be readily adapted for use in other healthcare institutions.

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.

Neonatal outcomes and congenital malformations in children born after dydrogesterone application in progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol for IVF: a retrospective cohort study

Purpose

Dydrogesterone (DYG) has been demonstrated to be an alternative progestin in the progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol with comparable oocyte retrieval and pregnancy outcomes. However, its safety regarding neonatal outcomes and congenital malformations is still unclear.

Patients and methods

This retrospective cohort study included 3556 live-born infants after in vitro fertilization and vitrified embryo transfer cycles using the DYG + human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) protocol (n=1429) or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH)-agonist short protocol (n=2127) from January 2014 to December 2017. Newborn information was gathered from standardized follow-up questionnaires and/or access to medical records within 7 days after birth. Associations between ovarian stimulation protocols and outcome measures were analyzed by binary logistic regression after adjusting for confounding factors.

Results

In both singletons and twins, birth characteristics regarding mode of delivery, newborn gender, gestational age, birthweight, length at birth and Z-scores were comparable between the two protocols. For adverse neonatal outcomes, the two protocols showed no significant differences on the rates of low birthweight, very low birthweight, preterm birth, very preterm birth, small-for-gestational age, large-for-gestational age and early neonatal death after adjustment. Furthermore, the incidence of major congenital malformations in the DYG + hMG protocol (1.12%) was similar to that in the GnRH-agonist short protocol (1.08%), with the adjusted odds ratio of 0.98 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40–2.39) and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.33–2.41) in singletons and twins, respectively.

Conclusion

Our data suggested that compared with the conventional GnRH-agonist short protocol, application of DYG in the PPOS protocol was a safe option for the newborn population without compromising neonatal outcomes or increasing congenital malformation risks.

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.

Identifying signals of potentially harmful medications in pregnancy: use of the double false discovery rate method to adjust for multiple testing

AIMS

Surveillance of medication use in pregnancy is essential to identify associations between first trimester medications and congenital anomalies (CAs). Medications in the same Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classes may have similar effects. We aimed to use this information to improve the detection of potential teratogens in CA surveillance data.

METHODS

Data on 15 058 malformed fetuses with first trimester medication exposures from 1995-2011 were available from EUROmediCAT, a network of European CA registries. For each medication-CA combination, the proportion of the CA in fetuses with the medication was compared to the proportion of the CA in all other fetuses in the dataset. The Australian classification system was used to identify high-risk medications in order to compare two methods of controlling the false discovery rate (FDR): a single FDR applied across all combinations, and a double FDR incorporating groupings of medications.

RESULTS

There were 28 765 potential combinations (523 medications × 55 CAs) for analysis. An FDR cut-off of 50% resulted in a reasonable effective workload, for which single FDR gave rise to eight medication signals (three high-risk medications) and double FDR 50% identified 16 signals (six high-risk). Over a range of FDR cut-offs, double FDR identified more high-risk medications as signals, for comparable effective workloads.

CONCLUSIONS

The double FDR method appears to improve the detection of potential teratogens in comparison to the single FDR, while maintaining a low risk of false positives. Use of double FDR is recommended in routine signal detection analyses of CA data.

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.

Progestogens and pregnancy loss

Progestational agents are often prescribed to prevent pregnancy loss. Progestogens affect implantation, cytokine balance, natural killer cell activity, arachidonic acid release and myometrial contractility. Progestogens have therefore been used at all stages of pregnancy including luteal-phase support prior to pregnancy, threatened miscarriage, recurrent miscarriage, and to prevent preterm labor. In luteal support, a Cochrane review reported that progestogens were associated with a higher rate of live births or ongoing pregnancy in the progesterone group (odds ratio 1.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09-2.86). Evidence suggests that progestogens are also effective for treating threatened miscarriage. Again, in a Cochrane Database review, progestogens were associated with a reduced odds ratio of 0.53 (95% CI 0.35-0.79) when progestogens were used. In recurrent miscarriage, progestogens also seem to have a beneficial effect. A meta-analysis of progestational agents showed a 28% increase in the live birth rate (relative risk 0.72, 95% CI 0.53-0.97). For the last 30 years, progestogens have been used to prevent preterm labor. Recent meta-analyses also report beneficial effects. This review summarizes the literature and the author's experience using progestogens to prevent pregnancy loss.

Progestogens in the prevention of miscarriage

Progestational agents are often prescribed to prevent threatened miscarriage progressing to miscarriage, and subsequent miscarriages in recurrent pregnancy loss. Progestogens affect implantation, cytokine balance, natural killer cell activity, arachidonic acid release and myometrial contractility. A recent Cochrane review reported that progestogens were effective for treating threatened miscarriage with no harmful effects on mother or fetus. The results were not statistically different when vaginal progesterone was compared to placebo, (RR=0.47, 95% CI 0.17-1.30), whereas oral progestogen (dydrogesterone) was effective (RR=0.54, CI 0.35-0.84). The review concluded, that the small number of eligible studies, and the small number of the participants, limited the power of the metaanalysis. A later metaanalysis of five randomised controlled trials of threatened miscarriage comprised 660 patients. The results of 335 women who received dydrogesterone were compared to 325 women receiveing either placebo or bed rest. There was a 47% reduction in the odds ratio for miscarriage, (OR=0.47, CI 0.31-0.7). There was a 13% (44/335) miscarriage rate after dydrogesterone administration compared to 24% in control women. Recurrent miscarriage affects approximately 1% of women of child bearing age. A metaanalysis of progestational agents shows a 26% increase in the live birth rate. Again, dydrogesterone was associated with a more significant increase in the live birth rate than the other progestogens included in the metaanalysis.