Comparison of oral dydrogesterone with vaginal progesteronefor luteal support in IUI cycles: a randomized clinical trial

Donya Khosravi, Robabeh Taheripanah, Anahita Taheripanah, Vahid Tarighat Monfared, Seyed-Mostafa Hosseini-Zijoud, Donya Khosravi, Robabeh Taheripanah, Anahita Taheripanah, Vahid Tarighat Monfared, Seyed-Mostafa Hosseini-Zijoud

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study, we have compared the advantages of oral dydrogestrone with vaginal progesterone (cyclogest) for luteal support in intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles. Progesterone supplementation is the first line treatment when luteal phase deficiency (LPD) can reasonably be assumed.

Objective: This study was conduct to compare the effect of oral dydrogestrone with vaginal Cyclogest on luteal phase support in the IUI cycles.

Materials and methods: This prospective, randomized, double blind study was performed in a local infertility center from May 2013 to May 2014. It consisted of 150 infertile women younger than35years old undergoing ovarian stimulation for IUI cycles. They underwent ovarian stimulation with oral dydrogesterone (20 mg) as group A and vaginal cyclogest (400 mg) as group B in preparation for the IUI cycles. Clinical pregnancy and abortion rates, mid luteal progesterone (7daysafter IUI) and patient satisfaction were compared between two groups.

Results: The mean serum progesterone levels was significantly higher in group A in comparison with group B (p=0.001). Pregnancy rates in group A was not statistically different in comparison with group B (p =0.58). Abortion rate in two groups was not statistically different (p =0.056) although rate of abortion was higher in group B in comparison with A group. Satisfaction rates were significantly higher in group A compared to group B (p<0.001).

Conclusion: We concluded that oral dydrogestrone is effective as vaginal progesterone for luteal-phase support in woman undergoing IUI cycles. Moreover, the mean serum progesterone levels and satisfaction rates in dydrogestrone group were higher than cyclogest group.

Keywords: Gonadal hormones; Luteal-phase; Progestins.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The flowchartoftheallocationofpatientsintotwogroupsandfollowedthem

References

    1. Honda T, Tsutsumi M, Komoda F, Tatsumi K. Acceptable pregnancy rate of unstimulated intrauterine insemination: a retrospective analysis of 17,830 cycles. Reprod Med Biol. 2015;14:27–32.
    1. Cohlen BJ. Should luteal phase support be introduced in ovarian stimulation/IUI programmes? An evidence-based review. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;19:4239.
    1. Miralpeix E, González-Comadran M, Solà I, Manau D, Carreras R, Checa MA. Efficacy of luteal phase support with vaginal progesterone in intrauterineinsemination: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31:89–100.
    1. Aali BS, Ebrahimipour S, MedhdizadehS The effectiveness of luteal phase support with cyclogest in ovarian stimulated intra uterine insemination cycles: A randomized controlled trial. Iran J Reprod Med. 2013;11:309–314.
    1. Lo Monte G, Piva I, Bazzan E, Marci R, OgrinC Luteal phase support for assisted reproductive technologies: between past, present and future. Minerva Endocrinol. 2013;38:401–414.
    1. American society for reproductive medicine. The clinical relevance of luteal phase deficiency: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:1112–1117.
    1. Oktem M, Altinkaya SO, Yilmaz SA, Bozkurt N, Erdem M, Erdem A, et al. Effect of luteal phase support after ovulation induction and intrauterineinsemination. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2014;7:1–4.
    1. Seckin B, Turkcapar F, Yildiz Y, Senturk B, Yilmaz N, GulermanC Effect of luteal phase support with vaginal progesterone in intrauterineinsemination cycles with regard to follicular response: a prospective randomized study. J Reprod Med. 2014;59:260–266.
    1. Ebrahimi M, AkbariAsbagh F, Darvish S. The effect of luteal phase support on pregnancy rates of the stimulated intrauterine insemination cycles in couple with unexplained infertility. Fertil Steril. 2010;4:51–56.
    1. Druckmann R, Druckmann MA. Progestrone and immunology of pregnancy. J Sterid Biochem Mol Biol. 2005;97:389–396.
    1. Check JH. Luteal phase support in assisted reproductive technology treatment: focus on Endometrin (progesterone) vaginal insert. Thr Clin Risk Manag . 2009;5 :403–407.
    1. Dmitrovic R, Vlaisavljevic V, Ivankovic D. Endometrial growth in early pregnancy after IVF/ET. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2008;25:453–459.
    1. Tavaniotou A, Smitz J, Bourgain C, Devroey P. Comparison between different routes of progesterone administration as luteal phase support in infertility treatments. Hum Reprod Updat. 2000;6:139–148.
    1. Salehpour S, Tamimi M, Saharkhiz N. Comparison of oral dydrogesterone with suppository vaginal progesterone for luteal-phase support in in vitro fertilization (IVF): A randomized clinical trial. Iran J Reprod Med. 2013;11:913–918.
    1. Maxson WS, Hargrove JT. Bioavailability of oral micronized progesterone. Fertil Steril. 1985;44:622–626.
    1. Zainul Rashid MR, Lim JF, Nawawi NH, Luqman M, Zolkeplai MF, Rangkuty HS, et al. A pilot study to determine whether progestogen supplementation using dydrogesterone during the first trimester will reduce the incidence of gestational hypertension in primigravidae. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2014;30:217–220.
    1. Allen NC, Herbert CM 3rd, Maxson WS, Rogers BJ, Diamond MP, Wentz AC. Intrauterine insemination: a critical review. Fertil Steril. 1985;44:569–580.
    1. Nuojua-Huttunen S, Tomas C, Bloigu R, Tuomivaara L, Martikainen H. Intrauterine insemination treatment in subfertility: an analysis of factors affecting outcome. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:698–703.
    1. Gezginc K, Gorkemli H, Celik C, Karatayli R, Ciçek MN, Olakoglu MC. Comparison of single versus double intrauterine insemination. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;47:57–61.
    1. Demirol A, Gurgan T. Comparison of different gonadotrophin preparations in intrauterine insemination cycles for the treatment of unexplained infertility: a prospective, randomized study. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:97–100.
    1. Freour T, Jean M, Mirallie S, Langlois ML, Dubourdieu S, Barriere P. Predictive value of CASA parameters in IUI with frozen donor sperm. Int J Androl. 2009;32:498–504.
    1. Yehia M. Luteal phase support in assisted reproduction. Middle East Fertility Society Journal. 2007;12:158–167.
    1. Tavaniotou , Devroey P. Effect of human chorionic gonadotropin on luteal luteinizing hormone concentrations in natural cycles. Fertil Steril. 2003;80:654–655.
    1. Nyboe AA, Popovic-Todorovic B, Schmidt KT, Loft A, Lindhard A, Hojgaard A, et al. Progesterone supplementation during early gestations after IVF or ICSI has no effect on the delivery rates: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:357–361.
    1. Jan EJ, Jee BC, Kim SD, Lee JR, Suh CS. Comparison of Oral Micronized Progesterone and Dydrogesterone as a Luteal Support in Intrauterine Insemination Cycle. Korean. J Reprod Med. 2010;37:153–158.
    1. 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.
    1. Romero Nieto MI, Lorente González J, Arjona-Berral JE, Del Muñoz-Villanueva M, Castelo-BrancoC Luteal phase support with progesterone in intrauterineinsemination: a prospective randomized study. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2014;30:197–201.
    1. Hill MJ, Whitcomb BW, Lewis TD, Wu M, Terry N, DeCherney AH, et al. Progesterone luteal support after ovulation induction and intrauterineinsemination: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:1373–1380.
    1. 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 . Human Reprod. 2007;22:1260–1263.
    1. 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.
    1. Patki A, Pawar VC. Modulating fertility outcome in assisted reproductive technologies by the use of dydrogesterone. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2007;23:68–72.
    1. 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 randomized study. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2005;97:416–420.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir