Use of Dydrogesterone During Controlled Ovarian Hyperstimulation in Normal Ovulatory Women Treated for in Vitro Fertilization or Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection Treatments

X. Zhu,Y. Fu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.07.685

IF: 6.7

2017-01-01

Fertility and Sterility

Abstract:Progesterone soft capsule (brand name Utrogestan) has recently been demonstrated to be an effective oral alternative for preventing premature LH surges during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH), with optimal pregnant outcomes in frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycles. However, side effects including dizziness, sleepiness, vertigo, nausea or vomiting were observed in some patients when Utrogestan was taken orally, especially in the morning. Therefore, it appears mandatory to explore some kind of progesterone preparation with minimal side effects. Dydrogesterone (brand name: Duphaston), a synthetic progesterone, does not interfere with the measurement of endogenous P production with rare reports about uncomfortable reactions. To date, there has been no study that investigated the use of Duphaston during COH. Hence, our study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of Duphaston on the prevention of premature LH surge in normalovulatory women and compare cycle characteristics as well as pregnancy outcomes in subsequent frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycles. Retrospective cohort study. 596 normalovulatory patients with 25-40years old were recruited from January 2015 to June 2016 in this retrospective study including 196 patients using Duphaston and hMG protocol and 400 patients using short protocol. In the Duphaston group, oral administration of Duphaston 20 mg/d and daily injection of hMG 150/225IU were started simultaneously from cycle day3 until the trigger day. When the dominant follicles reached mature, GnRH-a 0.1mg was used for trigger. Viable embryos were cryopreserved in all the participants for later transfer. The clinical results were compared in terms of hormone profile, embryo results, pregnant outcomes and side effects. Consistent LH suppression was achieved during COH with Duphaston, with a range of 0.28 to 9.17 IU/L, and no premature LH surge was detected. The number of oocytes retrieved in the Duphaston and hMG protocol was comparable with that in the short protocol (7.98±5.86 vs.8.14±5.4, P>0.05). No statistic differences were observed in the number of mature oocytes(7.12±5.16 vs.6.78±4.73), fertilized oocytes(5.4±4.23vs.5. 66±4.09), cleaved embryos(5.26±4.16 vs.5.53±4.02) and viable embryos(2.81±2.38 vs.2.64±2.31). The clinical pregnancy rate and implantation rate were also similar in the two groups. Moreover, no discomforts following oral delivery of Duphaston have been observed during our investigation. The study shows that Duphaston is a mild oral alternative which was feasible to prevent premature LH surges in women undergoing COH and produce component oocytes/embryos in combination with a "freeze-all" strategy. Further studies should be implemented to confirm this finding and compare the efficacy of different types of progesterone preparation.