Literature DB >> 30069600

New trial of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation using dydrogesterone versus a typical GnRH antagonist regimen in assisted reproductive technology.

Nanako Iwami1, Miho Kawamata2, Naoko Ozawa2, Takahiro Yamamoto2, Eri Watanabe2, Osamu Moriwaka2, Hirobumi Kamiya2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates between a protocol using oral dydrogesterone with human menopausal gonadotropin (HMG) for progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) and the typical gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist regimen in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH).
METHODS: This was a prospective, controlled study of 251 women who underwent COH for in vitro fertilization between October 2016 and July 2017. The patients were allocated alternately into two groups: a dydrogesterone protocol (study group) and a GnRH antagonist protocol (control group). In study group, dydrogesterone (20 mg/day) plus HMG (150 or 225 IU) were administered simultaneously beginning on days 2 or 3 of the menstrual cycle. In both groups, all high-quality embryos were cryopreserved for later transfer. The primary outcome was the ongoing pregnancy rate at 12 weeks per frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) and the secondary outcome was the clinical pregnancy rate.
RESULTS: None of the patients experienced a premature luteinizing hormone surge. During the follow-up period, 397 FET cycles were completed. The ongoing pregnancy rates at 12 weeks were 40.0% in study group versus 38.1% in control group (absolute difference 1.9%; 95% CI - 6.83 to 17.2%). The clinical pregnancy rate in study group (52.8%) was also not inferior to that in control group (49.5%; absolute difference 3.3%; 95% CI - 4.02 to 20.2%).
CONCLUSIONS: The clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates in study group were comparable to those in control group. Therefore, PPOS with dydrogesterone is a reasonable option to provide COH.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Controlled ovarian stimulation; Dydrogesterone; GnRH antagonist; Premature LH surge; Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30069600     DOI: 10.1007/s00404-018-4856-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet        ISSN: 0932-0067            Impact factor:   2.344


  10 in total

1.  Outcomes of a GnRH Agonist Trigger Following a GnRH Antagonist or Flexible Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation Cycle.

Authors:  Erkan Kalafat; Engin Turkgeldi; Sule Yıldız; Merve Dizdar; Ipek Keles; Baris Ata
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-05-19       Impact factor: 6.055

2.  Progesterone-primed ovarian stimulation in polycystic ovarian syndrome: An RCT.

Authors:  Maryam Eftekhar; Masrooreh Hoseini; Lida Saeed
Journal:  Int J Reprod Biomed       Date:  2019-09-22

3.  Outcomes of fertility preservation in women with endometriosis: comparison of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus antagonist protocols.

Authors:  Emmanuelle Mathieu d'Argent; Clément Ferrier; Chrysoula Zacharopoulou; Naouel Ahdad-Yata; Anne-Sophie Boudy; Adèle Cantalloube; Rachel Levy; Jean-Marie Antoine; Emile Daraï; Sofiane Bendifallah
Journal:  J Ovarian Res       Date:  2020-02-13       Impact factor: 4.234

4.  Effectiveness of progesterone-primed ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Fang Wang; Chen Chen; Ling Cui; Yonghong Lin
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2021-01-12       Impact factor: 2.344

5.  Usefulness of random-start progestin-primed ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation.

Authors:  Haipeng Huang; Yukiko Itaya; Kouki Samejima; Shunichiro Ichinose; Tatsuya Narita; Shigetaka Matsunaga; Masahiro Saitoh; Yasushi Takai
Journal:  J Ovarian Res       Date:  2022-01-04       Impact factor: 4.234

6.  Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation Protocol for Patients in Assisted Reproductive Technology: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Authors:  Shaogen Guan; Yuezhi Feng; Yonghan Huang; Jia Huang
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2021-08-31       Impact factor: 5.555

7.  Fixed Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Antagonist Protocol Versus Flexible Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation Protocol in Patients With Asynchronous Follicular Development During Controlled Ovulation Stimulation: A Retrospective Study.

Authors:  Mei Dong; Li Sun; Li Huang; Fang Wang; Xiqian Zhang; Fenghua Liu
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2021-11-18       Impact factor: 5.555

8.  Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation is a non-inferior alternative to the GnRH Antagonist Protocol in patients undergoing assisted reproductive techniques: a retrospective study.

Authors:  João Pedro Junqueira Caetano; Luciana Campomizzi Calazans; Leci Veiga Caetano Amorim; Leonardo Matheus Ribeiro Pereira; Erica Becker Sousa Xavier; Ana Luisa Menezes Campos; Bruna Barbosa Coimbra; Ricardo Mello Marinho
Journal:  JBRA Assist Reprod       Date:  2022-01-17

9.  Comparison of the Cumulative Live Birth Rates of Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation and Flexible GnRH Antagonist Protocols in Patients With Low Prognosis.

Authors:  Mingze Du; Junwei Zhang; Zhen Li; Xinmi Liu; Jing Li; Wenxia Liu; Yichun Guan
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2021-09-13       Impact factor: 5.555

10.  Comparison of Cumulative Live Birth Rates Between GnRH-A and PPOS in Low-Prognosis Patients According to POSEIDON Criteria: A Cohort Study.

Authors:  Shaodi Zhang; Yisha Yin; Qiuyuan Li; Cuilian Zhang
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2021-06-21       Impact factor: 5.555

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.