scholarly journals Natural Micronized Progesterone Sustained Release (SR) and Luteal Phase: Role Redefined!!

Author(s):  
Sonia Malik
1999 ◽  
Vol 14 (Suppl_3) ◽  
pp. 169-170
Author(s):  
D. Loutradis ◽  
P. Drakakis ◽  
S. Zafiriou ◽  
K. Kallianidis ◽  
P. Winig ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
T Ho ◽  
T Pham ◽  
K Le ◽  
T Ly ◽  
H Le ◽  
...  

Abstract 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 improves live birth rates and reduces miscarriage rates 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 in vitro fertilization (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. 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). 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% confidence interval [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 (3.4% vs 6.6%; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32–0.83; p = 0.009). Birth weight of both singletons (2971.0 ± 628.4 vs. 3118.8 ± 559.2 g; p = 0.004) and twins (2175.5 ± 494.8 vs. 2494.2 ± 584.7; p = 0.002) was significantly lower in the progesterone plus dydrogesterone versus progesterone group. Limitations, reasons for caution 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 Oral dydrogesterone in addition to vaginal progesterone as luteal phase support in FET cycles can 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. Trial registration number NCT03998761


Author(s):  
Georg Griesinger ◽  
Christophe Blockeel ◽  
Gennady T. Sukhikh ◽  
Ameet Patki ◽  
Bharati Dhorepatil ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonia Shirin ◽  
Azita Goshtasebi ◽  
Dharani Kalidasan ◽  
Jerilynn C Prior

Abstract Women living with androgenic PCOS (WLWP) experience unpredictable oligomenorrhea1 and are at increased risk for endometrial cancer2. Oral micronized progesterone (OMP) given cyclically (14 days/cycle or 4 weeks, Cyclic OMP), in luteal phase doses3 (300 mg at bedtime) as a “luteal phase replacement” therapy would be likely to effectively treat both. In addition, evidence suggests PCOS is causally related to rapid pulsing of GnRH and LH 4; OMP normalizes LH pulsatility if androgen levels are not elevated 4. Previous searches did not find progesterone therapy for PCOS 5. Our research question: Does the peer-reviewed literature provide evidence for prescribing cyclic progesterone therapy in PCOS? Literature search methods used Medline (Ovid) and PubMed for published articles. Our search terms were: “polycystic ovary syndrome”, “androgenic PCOS”, and, “micronized progesterone.” We sought publications with eligible women participants having androgenic PCOS, drug exposures (cyclic OMP, vaginal progesterone, and in varying doses and durations) and specific outcomes (biochemical or patient-reported data or both) in all languages. We excluded reviews and practice guidelines but searched bibliographies for missed citations. Results discovered 18 articles in combined Medline (n=6) and PubMed (12) searches. After excluding duplicates, articles on estradiol (E2) alone E2 with OMP therapy, five eligible articles remained. We read all in full detail. Progesterone therapy was beneficial for WLWP as, even in sub-therapeutic doses (<300 mg at bedtime) and in cycles of too short durations (<14 days), it decreased luteinizing hormone (LH) 6,7 and total testosterone 7 levels. Vaginal progesterone (200 mg, b.i.d for 2 to 12 weeks) added to letrozole ovulation induction increased the pregnancy rate from 0 to 21% 8. Although present data suggest Cyclic OMP withdrawal predictively causes flow, we found no evidence it improved women’s cycle-related experiences nor decreased acne and hirsutism. Women-reported data on Cyclic OMP for improving androgenic PCOS cycle regularity, daily experiences and risks for endometrial cancer are needed. Reference: 1Azziz R Nat Rev Dis Primers 2016;2:16057. 2Barry J Hum Reprod Update 2014; 20:748. 3Simon J Fertil Steril 1993;60:26. 4Blank S Hum Reprod Update 2006;12:351. 5Teede H Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2018;89:251. 6Livadas S Fertil Steril 2010;94:242. 7Bagis T J Clin Endocr Met 2002;87:4536. 8Montville C Fertil Steril. 2010;94:678.


2015 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 213-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nasrin Saharkhiz ◽  
Marzieh Zamaniyan ◽  
Saghar Salehpour ◽  
Shahrzad Zadehmodarres ◽  
Sedighe Hoseini ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document