A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Oral dydrogesterone vs. micronized vaginal progesterone gel for luteal phase support in frozen-thawed single blastocyst transfer in good prognosis patients. | LitMetric

Objective: To investigate the efficacy of oral dydrogesterone for luteal phase support (LPS) in modified natural cycle frozen-thawed embryo transfers (mNC-FET) compared to micronized vaginal progesterone (MVP) gel.

Methods: This was a randomized, single-center, parallel controlled trial conducted at an ART and Reproductive Genetics Centre within a private hospital between January and August 2019. A total of 134 women, aged below 38, were assigned randomly to receive oral dydrogesterone (n=67) or MVP (n=67) for LPS in mNC-FET. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) and secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy and miscarriage rates, patients' satisfaction and tolerability of oral and vaginal progesterone. A questionnaire was developed to compare patient satisfaction and side effect profiles.

Results: There was no significant difference in demographic features such as female age, body mass index, AMH levels and fresh cycle characteristics between two groups (p>0.05). When mNC-FET outcomes were compared, OPR was 68.7 % in MVP gel group and 71.6 % in the dydrogesterone group respectively percentage difference, -2.99; 95 % CI: -17.96, 13.10) Biochemical and clinical pregnancy rates and biochemical and clinical miscarriage rates were also similar between two groups. A significantly higher patient tolerability score was present in the dydrogesterone arm (4.09 ± 0.96 vs 3.36 ± 1.23, p=0.001).

Conclusion: Our results suggest that oral dydrogesterone provides similar ongoing pregnancy rates compared to MVP gel as a LPS in mNC FET. Since dydrogesterone is an effective and easy-to-use option with fewer intolerable side effects including vaginal irritation, vaginal discharge, and preventing sexual intercourse, it can be used as LPS in mNC FET.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2020.102030DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

oral dydrogesterone
16
vaginal progesterone
12
micronized vaginal
8
luteal phase
8
phase support
8
ongoing pregnancy
8
clinical pregnancy
8
miscarriage rates
8
mvp gel
8
biochemical clinical
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!