HEALTH OF WOMAN. 2018.2(128):44–48; doi 10.15574/HW.2018.128.44

Strelko G. V.
Medical Center «Rodynne dzherelo», Kyiv

The objective: comparative characteristics of the use of oral progesterone – dydrogesterone and vaginal form of micronized progesterone in maintaining the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle in women with a reduced response to stimulation of the ovaries with the study of their effectiveness.
Materials and methods. The study of the effectiveness of oral retroprogesterone – dydrogesterone used as luteal phase support in IVF cycles in poor responders women compared with the use of vaginal form of micronized progesterone by the rate of implantation frequency, pregnancies and early reproductive losses.
Results. It has been shown that dydrogesterone (oral administration) and micronized progesterone (intravaginal application) have high efficacy in maintaining the luteal phase of the cycle. In both groups in our study, similar results were obtained with respect to the number of pregnancies, implanted embryos, and the percentage of pregnancy loss with some benefit in the use of dydrogesterone, but with no statistically significant difference in oocyte donation cycles and in controlled ovarian stimulation cycles and cryopreservation.
Conclusion. Retroprogesterone-dydrogesterone has a high efficacy in its use to support the luteal phase of the cycle in ART programs, particularly for women with poor ovarian response to stimulation, and its pharmacokinetic properties allow it to be taken orally, providing a more convenient and acceptable form of treatment.
Key words: luteal phase support, in vitro fertilization, dydrogesteron.

REFERENCES

1. Baker VL, Jones CA, Doody K, Foulk R, Yee B, Adamson GD, Cometti B, DeVane G, Hubert G, Trevisan S et al. 2014. A randomized, controlled trial comparing the efficacy and safety of aqueous subcutaneous progesterone with vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support of in vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 29:2212–2220. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu194; PMid:25100106 PMCid:PMC4164149

2. Barbosa MW, Silva LR, Navarro PA, Ferriani RA, Nastri CO, Martins WP. 2015. Dydrogesterone versus progesterone for luteal-phase support: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 48:161–170. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.15814; PMid:26577241

3. Chakravarty BN, Shirazee HH, Dam P, Goswami SK, Chatterjee R, Ghosh S. 2005. Oral dydrogesterone versus intravaginal micronised progesterone as luteal phase supportin assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles: results of arandomised study. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 97: 416–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsbmb.2005.08.012; PMid:16213136

4. Chambers GM, Hoang VP, Zhu R, Illingworth PJ. 2012. A reduction in public funding for fertility treatment – an econometric analysis of access to treatment and savings to government. BMC Health Serv Res 12:142. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-12-142; PMid:22682009 PMCid:PMC3464128

5. Davies MJ, Moore VM, Willson KJ, Van EP, Priest K, Scott H, Haan EA, Chan A. 2012. Reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects. N Engl J Med 366:1803–1813. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1008095; PMid:22559061

6. Doody KJ, Schnell VL, Foulk RA, Miller CE, Kolb BA, Blake EJ, Yankov VI. 2009. Endometrin for luteal phase support in a randomized, controlled, openlabel, prospective in-vitro fertilization trial using a combination of Menopur and Bravelle for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Fertil Steril 91:1012–1017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.01.069; PMid:18371963

7. Dyer S, Chambers GM, de Mouzon J, Nygren KG, Zegers-Hochschild F, Mansour R, Ishihara O, Banker M, Adamson GD. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies world report: Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2008, 2009 and 2010.

8. Hum Reprod 2016;31:1588–1609. Fatemi HM, Bourgain C, Donoso P, Blockeel C, Papanikolaou EG, Popovic-Todorovic B, Devroey P. 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. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:1260–1263. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/del520; PMid:17227809

9. Ganesh A, Chakravorty N, Mukherjee R, Goswami S, Chaudhury K, Chakravarty B. 2011. 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 95:1961–1965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.01.148; PMid:21333984

10. Kupferminc MJ, Lessing JB, Amit A, Yovel I, David MP, Peyser MR. 1990. A prospective randomized trial of human chorionic gonadotrophin or dydrogesterone support following in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 5:271–273. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137087; PMid:2351709

11. Lockwood G, Griesinger G, Cometti B. 2014. Subcutaneous progesterone versus vaginal progesterone gel for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization: a noninferiority randomized controlled study. Fertil Steril 101:112–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.09.010; PMid:24140033

12. Ludwig M, Schwartz P, Babahan B, Katalinic A, Weiss JM, Felberbaum R, Al-Hasani S, Diedrich K. 2002. Luteal phase support using either Crinone 8% or Utrogest: results of a prospective, randomized study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 103:48–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-2115(02)00010-6

13. Mirza FG, Patki A, Pexman-Fieth C. 2016. Dydrogesterone use in early pregnancy. Gynecol Endocrinol 32:97–106. Palomba S, Santagni S, La Sala GB. 2015. Progesterone administration for luteal phase deficiency in human reproduction: an old or new issue? J Ovarian Res 8:77.

14. Queisser-Luft A. 2009. Dydrogesterone use during pregnancy: overview of birth defects reported since 1977. Early Hum Dev 85:375–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2008.12.016; PMid:19193503

15. Saharkhiz N, Zamaniyan M, Salehpour S, Zadehmodarres S, Hoseini S, Cheraghi L, Seif S, Baheiraei N. 2016. A comparative study of dydrogesterone and micronized progesteroneforluteal phase support duringin vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles. Gynecol Endocrinol 32:213–217. https://doi.org/10.3109/09513590.2015.1110136; PMid:26486011

16. Salehpour S, Tamimi M, Saharkhiz N. 2013. 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 11:913–918. PMid:24639716 PMCid:PMC3941387

17. Schindler AE. 2009. Progestational effects of dydrogesterone in vitro, in vivo and on the human endometrium. Maturitas 65:S3–S11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2009.10.011; PMid:19969432