To the content
1 . 2021

Dydrogesterone as an oral alternative to vaginal progesterone for IVF luteal phase support: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis

Abstract

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.

Griesinger G., Blockeel C., Kahler E., Pexman-Fieth C., Olofsson J.I., Driessen S., et al. Dydrogesterone as an oral alternative to vaginal progesterone for IVF luteal phase support: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2020; 15 (11): e0241044. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241044

Литература/References

1. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Progesterone supplementation during the luteal phase and in early pregnancy in the treatment of infertility: an educational bulletin. Fertil Steril. 2008; 89 (4): 789-92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertn-stert.2008.02.012 PMID: 18406835.

2. Beckers N.G., Macklon N.S., Eijkemans M.J., Ludwig M., Felberbaum R.E., Diedrich K., et al. Nonsupplemented luteal phase characteristics after the administration of recombinant human chorionic gonadotropin, recombinant luteinizing hormone, or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist to induce final oocyte maturation in in vitro fertilization patients after ovarian stimulation with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone and GnRH antagonist cotreatment. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003; 88 (9): 4186-92. Epub 2003.09.13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2002-021953 PMID: 12970285

3. Kolibianakis E.M., Bourgain C., Platteau P., Albano C., Van Steirteghem A.C., Devroey P. Abnormal endometrial development occurs during the luteal phase of nonsupplemented donor cycles treated with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone and gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists. Fertil Steril. 2003; 80 (2): 464-6. Epub 2003.08.12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(03)00663-0 PMID: 12909519.

4. Macklon N.S., Fauser B.C. Impact of ovarian hyperstimulation on the luteal phase. J Reprod Fertil Suppl. 2000; 55: 101-8. Epub 2000.07.13. PMID: 10889839.

5. van der Linden M., Buckingham K., Farquhar C., Kremer J.A., Metwally M. Luteal phase support for assisted reproduction cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015; 7 (7): CD009154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009154.pub3 PMID: 26148507.

6. ESHRE Guideline Group on Ovarian Stimulation; Bosch E., Broer S., Griesinger G., Grynberg M., Humaidan P., et al. ESHRE guideline: ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI. Hum. Reprod. Open. 2020; 2020; hoaa009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoaa009 PMID: 32395637.

7. Vaisbuch E., Leong M., Shoham Z. Progesterone support in IVF: is evidence-based medicine translated to clinical practice? A worldwide web-based survey. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012; 25 (2): 139-45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.04.005 PMID: 22683150.

8. Doblinger J., Cometti B., Trevisan S., Griesinger G. Subcutaneous progesterone is effective and safe for luteal phase support in IVF: an individual patient data meta-analysis of the phase III trials. PLoS One. 2016; 11 (3): e0151388. Epub 2016.03.19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151388 PMID: 26991890; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4798618.

9. KhroufM.,SlimaniS., KhroufM.R., Braham M., Bouyahia M., Berjeb K.K., et al. Progesterone for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization: comparison of vaginal and rectal pessaries to vaginal capsules: a randomized controlled study. Clin Med Insights Womens Health. 2016; 9: 43-7. Epub 2017.01.18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4137/CMWH.S32156 PMID: 28096703; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5217976.

10. Stanczyk F.Z., Hapgood J.P., Winer S., Mishell D.R. Jr., Progesto-gens used in postmenopausal hormone therapy: differences in their pharmacological properties, intracellular actions, and clinical effects. Endocr Rev. 2013; 34 (2): 171-208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1210/er.2012-1008 PMID: 23238854; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3610676.

11. Simon J.A., Robinson D.E., Andrews M.C., Hildebrand J.R. 3rd, Rocci M.L. Jr, Blake R.E., et al. The absorption of oral micronized progesterone: the effect of food, dose proportionality, and comparison with intramuscular progesterone. Fertil Steril. 1993; 60 (1): 26-33. PMID: 8513955.

12. Nahoul K., Dehennin L., Jondet M., Roger M. Profiles of plasma estrogens, progesterone and their metabolites after oral or vaginal administration of estradiol or progesterone. Maturitas. 1993; 16 (3): 185-202. Epub 1993.05.01. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-5122(93)90064-o PMID: 8515718.

13. Beltsos A.N., Sanchez M.D., Doody K.J., Bush M.R., Domar A.D., Collins M.G. Patients' administration preferences: progesterone vaginal insert (Endometrin®) compared to intramuscular progesterone for luteal phase support. Reprod Health. 2014; 11: 78. Epub 2014.11.12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-4755-11-78 PMID: 25385669; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4414383.

14. Tavaniotou A., Smitz J., Bourgain C., Devroey P. Comparison between different routes of progesterone administration as luteal phase support in infertility treatments. Hum Reprod Update. 2000; 6 (2): 139-48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/6.2.139 PMID: 10782572.

15. Lockwood G., Griesinger G., Cometti B. Subcutaneous progesterone versus vaginal progesterone gel for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization: a noninferiority randomized controlled study. Fertil Steril. 2014; 101 (1): 112-9.e3. Epub 2013.10.22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertn-stert.2013.09.010 PMID: 24140033.

16. Carosso A., Revelli A., Gennarelli G., Canosa S., Cosma S., Borella F., et al. Controlled ovarian stimulation and progesterone supplementation affect vaginal and endometrial microbiota in IVF cycles: a pilot study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020; 37 (9): 2315-26. Epub 2020.07.17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-020-01878-4 PMID: 32671734.

17. Sirota I., Zarek S.M., Segars J.H. Potential influence of the mi-crobiome on infertility and assisted reproductive technology. Semin Reprod Med. 2014; 32 (1): 35-42. Epub 2014.01.07. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1361821 PMID: 24390919; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4137456.

18. Griesinger G., TournayeH., Macklon N., Petraglia F., Arck P., Blockeel C., et al. Dydrogesterone: pharmacological profile and mechanism of action as luteal phase support in assisted reproduction. Reprod Biomed Online. 2019; 38 (2): 249-59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.11.017 PMID: 30595525.

19. SchindlerA.E., Campagnoli C., Druckmann R., HuberJ., Pasqualini J.R., Schweppe K.W., et al. Classification and pharmacology of progestins. Maturitas. 2003; 46 (suppl 1): S7-16. Epub 2003.12.13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2003.09.014 PMID: 14670641.

20. Colombo D., Ferraboschi P., Prestileo P., Toma L. A comparative molecular modeling study of dydrogesterone with other progestational agents through theoretical calculations and nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2006; 98 (1): 56-62. Epub 2005.10.12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsbmb.2005.07.009 PMID: 16216490.

21. Rizner T.L., Brozic P., Doucette C., Turek-Etienne T., Muller-Vieira U., Sonneveld E., et al. Selectivity and potency of the retroprogesterone dydro-gesterone in vitro. Steroids. 2011; 76 (6): 607-15. Epub 2011.03.08. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.steroids.2011.02.043 PMID: 21376746.

22. Stanczyk F.Z., Hapgood J.P., Winer S., Mishell D.R. Jr. Progestogens used in postmenopausal hormone therapy: differences in their pharmacological properties, intracellular actions, and clinical effects. Endocr Rev. 2013; 34 (2): 171-208. Epub 2012.12.15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1210/er.2012-1008 PMID: 23238854; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3610676.

23. Griesinger G., Blockeel C., Tournaye H. Oral dydrogesterone for luteal phase support in fresh in vitro fertilization cycles: a new standard? Fertil Steril. 2018; 109 (5): 756-62. Epub 2018.05.21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.03.034 PMID: 29778368.

24. Mirza F.G., Patki A., Pexman-Fieth C. Dydrogesterone use in early pregnancy. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2016; 32 (2): 97-106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/09513590.2015.1121982 PMID: 26800266.

25. Rizner T.L., Brozic P., Doucette C., Turek-Etienne T., Muller-Vieira U., Sonneveld E., et al. Selectivity and potency of the retroprogesterone dydrogesterone in vitro. Steroids. 2011; 76 (6): 607-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.steroids.2011.02.043 PMID: 21376746.

26. Chakravarty B.N., Shirazee H.H., Dam P., Goswami S.K., Chatterjee R., Ghosh S. Oral dydrogesterone versus intravaginal micronised progesterone as luteal phase support in assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles: results of a randomised study. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2005; 97 (5): 416-20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsbmb.2005.08.012 PMID: 16213136.

27. Zargar M., Saadati N., Ejtahed M.S. Comparison the effectiveness of oral dydrogesterone, vaginal progesterone suppository and progesterone ampule for luteal phase support on pregnancy rate during ART cycles. Int J Pharm Res Allied Sci. 2016; 5 (3): 229-36.

28. Patki A., Pawar V.C. Modulatingfertility outcome in assisted reproductive technologies by the use of dydrogesterone. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2007; 23 (suppl 1): 68-72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09513590701584857 PMID: 17943542.

29. Tomic V., Tomic J., Klaic D.Z., Kasum M., Kuna K. Oral dydrogesterone versus vaginal progesterone gel in the luteal phase support: randomized controlled trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015; 186: 4953. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.11.002 PMID: 25622239.

30. 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 (6): 1961-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.01.148 PMID: 21333984.

31. Saharkhiz N., Zamaniyan M., Salehpour S., Zadehmodarres S., Hoseini S., Cheraghi L., et al. A comparative study of dydrogesterone and micronized progesterone for luteal phase support during in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2016; 32 (3): 213-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/09513590.2015.1110136 PMID: 26486011.

32. 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 (11): 913-8. PMID: 24639716; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3941387.

33. Griesinger G., Blockeel C., Sukhikh G.T., Patki A., Dhorepatil B., Yang D.Z., et al. Oral dydrogesterone versus intravaginal micronized progesterone gel for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization: a randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod. 2018; 33 (12): 2212-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dey306 PMID: 30304457.

34. Tournaye H., Sukhikh G.T., Kahler E., Griesinger G. A phase III randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy, safety and tolerability of oral dydrogesterone versus micronized vaginal progesterone for luteal support in in vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 2017; 32 (5): 1019-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dex023 PMID: 28333318; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5400051.

35. Riley R.D., Lambert P.C., Abo-Zaid G. Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting. BMJ. 2010; 340: c221. Epub 2010.02.09. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c221 PMID: 20139215.

36. Riley R.D. Commentary: like it and lump it? Meta-analysis using individual participant data. Int J Epidemiol. 2010; 39 (5): 1359-61. Epub 2010.07.28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyq129 PMID: 20660642.

37. Kontopantelis E. A comparison of one-stage vs two-stage individual patient data meta-analysis methods: a simulation study. Res Synth Methods. 2018; 9 (3): 417-30. Epub 2018.05.23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1303 PMID: 29786975; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6175226.

38. Thomas D., Platt R., Benedetti A. A comparison of analytic approaches for individual patient data metaanalyses with binary outcomes. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017; 17 (1): 28. Epub 2017.02.17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0307-7 PMID: 28202011; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5312561.

39. Moher D., Liberati A., Tetzlaff J., Altman D.G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009; 6 (7): e1000097. Epub 2009.07.22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 PMID: 19621072; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2707599.

40. Riley R.D., Simmonds M.C., Look M.P. Evidence synthesis combining individual patient data and aggregate data: a systematic review identified current practice and possible methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007; 60 (5): 431-9. Epub 2007.04.11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.09.009 PMID: 17419953.

41. Higgins J.P., Altman D.G., Gotzsche P.C., Juni P., Moher D., Oxman A.D., et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011; 343: d5928. Epub 2011.10.20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928 PMID: 22008217; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3196245.

42. Jirge P.R. Poor ovarian reserve. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2016; 9 (2): 63-9. Epub 2016.07.07. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-1208.183514 PMID: 27382229; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4915288.

43. Vaegter K.K., Lakic T.G., Olovsson M., Berglund L., Brodin T., Holte J. Which factors are most predictive for live birth after in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) treatments? Analysis of 100 prospectively recorded variables in 8,400 IVF/ICSI single-embryo transfers. Fertil Steril. 2017; 107 (3): 641-8.e2. Epub 2017.01.22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.12.005 PMID: 28108009.

44. Kushnir V.A., Barad D.H., Albertini D.F., Darmon S.K., Gleicher N. Systematic review of worldwide trends in assisted reproductive technology 2004-2013. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2017; 15 (1): 6. Epub 2017.01.11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-016-0225-2 PMID: 28069012; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5223447.

45. Toner J.P., Coddington C.C., Doody K., Van Voorhis B., Seifer D.B., Ball G.D., et al. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology and assisted reproductive technology in the United States: a 2016 update. Fertil Steril. 2016; 106 (3): 541-6. Epub 2016.06.16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.05.026 PMID: 27301796.

46. Pandian Z., Marjoribanks J., Ozturk O., Serour G., Bhattacharya S. Number of embryos for transfer following in vitro fertilisation or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; 7: CD003416. Epub 2013.07.31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003416.pub4 PMID: 23897513.

47. Klitzman R. Deciding how many embryos to transfer: ongoing challenges and dilemmas. Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2016; 3: 1-15. Epub 2016.12.01. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2016.07.001 PMID: 29541689; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5846681.

48. Zaqout M., Aslem E., Abuqamar M., Abughazza O., Panzer J., De Wolf D. The impact of oral intake of dydrogesterone on fetal heart development during early pregnancy. Pediatr Cardiol. 2015; 36 (7): 1483-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00246-015-1190-9 PMID: 25972284.

49. Wacholder S., McLaughlin J.K., Silverman D.T., Mandel J.S. Selection of controls in case-control studies. I. Principles. Am J Epidemiol. 1992; 135 (9): 1019-28. Epub 1992.05.01. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ox-fordjournals.aje.a116396 PMID: 1595688.

50. Queisser-Luft A. Dydrogesterone use during pregnancy: overview of birth defects reported since 1977. Early Hum Dev. 2009; 85 (6): 375-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2008.12.016 PMID: 19193503.

51. Barbosa M.W., Silva L.R., Navarro P.A., Ferriani R.A., Nastri C.O., Martins W.P. Dydrogesterone vs progesterone for luteal-phase support: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 48 (2): 161-70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.15814 PMID: 26577241.

52. Barbosa M.W.P., Valadares N.P.B., Barbosa A.C.P., Amaral A.S., Igle-sias J.R., Nastri C.O., et al. Oral dydrogesterone vs vaginal progesterone capsules for luteal-phase support in women undergoing embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2018; 22 (2): 148-56. Epub 2018.03.01. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20180018 PMID: 29488367; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5982562.

53. Ghobara T., Gelbaya T.A., Ayeleke R.O. Cycle regimens for frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017; 7: CD003414. Epub 2017.07.05. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003414. pub3 PMID: 28675921.

54. Mohammed A., Woad K.J., Mann G.E., Craigon J., Raine-Fenning N., Robinson R.S. Evaluation of progestogen supplementation for luteal phase support in fresh in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril. 2019; 112 (3): 491-502.e3. Epub 2019.06.16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertn-stert.2019.04.021 PMID: 31200970.

55. Boostanfar R., Mannaerts B., Pang S., Fernandez-Sanchez M., Witjes H., Devroey P., et al. A comparison of live birth rates and cumulative ongoing pregnancy rates between Europe and North America after ovarian stimulation with corifollitropin alfa or recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone. Fertil Steril. 2012; 97 (6): 1351-8. Epub 2012.03.31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.02.038 PMID: 22459628.

56. Jones A.P., Riley R.D., Williamson P.R., Whitehead A. Meta-analysis of individual patient data versus aggregate data from longitudinal clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2009; 6 (1): 16-27. Epub 2009.03.04. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774508100984 PMID: 19254930.

57. Arvidsson C., Hellborg M., Gemzell-Danielsson K. Preference and acceptability of oral versus vaginal administration of misoprostol in medical abortion with mifepristone. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005; 123 (1): 87-91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.ejogrb.2005.02.019 PMID: 16260342.

58. Bingham J.S. Single blind comparison of ketoconazole 200 mg oral tablets and clotrimazole 100 mg vaginal tablets and 1 % cream in treating acute vaginal candidosis. Br J Vener Dis. 1984; 60 (3): 175-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/sti.60.3.175 PMID: 6329405; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1046294.

59. Ginsburg E.S., Jellerette-Nolan T., Daftary G., Du Y., Silverberg K.M. Patient experience in a randomized trial of a weekly progesterone vaginal ring versus a daily progesterone gel for luteal support after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2018; 110 (6): 1101-8.e3. Epub 2018.11.07. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.07.014 PMID: 30396554.

60. Palmeira-de-Oliveira R., Duarte P., Palmeira-de-Oliveira A., das Neves J., Amaral M.H., Breitenfeld L., et al. Women's experiences, preferences and perceptions regarding vaginal products: results from a crosssectional web-based survey in Portugal. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2015; 20 (4): 259-71. Epub 2014.12.23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/13625187.2014.980501 PMID: 25529320.

61. Drumond N., van Riet-Nales D.A., Karapinar-Carkit F., Stege-mann S. Patients' appropriateness, acceptability, usability and preferences for pharmaceutical preparations: results from a literature review on clinical evidence. Int J Pharm. 2017; 521 (1-2): 294-305. Epub 2017. 02.24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/jjjpharm.2017.02.029 PMID: 282 29945.

62. Garcla-Velasco J.A., Budding D., Campe H., Malfertheiner S.F., Hamamah S., Santjohanser C., et al. The reproductive microbiome — clinical practice recommendations for fertility specialists. Reprod Miomed Online. 2020; 41 (3): 443-53. Epub 2020.08.06. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.06.014 PMID: 32753361.

63. ClinicalTrials.gov. Oral dydrogesterone (OD) versus micron-ized vaginal progesterone (MVP) for luteal phase support (LPS) in IVF/ ICSI (NCT03677336) 2019. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03677336

64. Griesinger G., Tournaye H., Connolly M.P., Pexman-Fieth C. (eds). A comparison of live birth rates and cost-effectiveness analysis in luteal support based on a multicenter, double-blind RCT of oral dydrogesterone vs micronized vaginal progesterone. In: 7th Congress of the Asia Pacific Initiative on Reproduction (ASPIRE 2017); 30 Mar-2 Apr 2017. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2017.

65. Yang D.Z., Blockeel C., Smuts F., Kyoo K., Wang W., Gong F.L., et al. (eds). Cost comparative analysis for luteal phase support in IVF comparing oral dydrogesterone and 8% micronized vaginal progesterone gel: Chinese subgroup analysis from a randomized study. In: 9th Congress of the Asia Pacific Initiative on Reproduction (ASPIRE 2019); 2-5 May 2019. Hong Kong, 2019.

All articles in our journal are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0 license)

CHIEF EDITORS
CHIEF EDITOR
Sukhikh Gennadii Tikhonovich
Academician of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, V.I. Kulakov Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology National Medical Research Center of Ministry of Healthсаre of the Russian Federation, Moscow
CHIEF EDITOR
Kurtser Mark Arkadievich
Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, MD, Professor, Head of the Obstetrics and Gynecology Subdepartment of the Pediatric Department, N.I. Pirogov Russian National Scientific Research Medical University, Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation
CHIEF EDITOR
Radzinsky Viktor Evseevich
Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, MD, Professor, Head of the Subdepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology with a Course of Perinatology of the Medical Department in the Russian People?s Friendship University

Journals of «GEOTAR-Media»