Dataset Information

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.

ABSTRACT: Is oral dydrogesterone 30 mg daily (10 mg three times daily [TID]) non-inferior to micronized vaginal progesterone (MVP) 600 mg daily (200 mg TID) for luteal support in in vitro fertilization (IVF), assessed by the presence of fetal heartbeats determined by transvaginal ultrasound at 12 weeks of gestation?Non-inferiority of oral dydrogesterone versus MVP was demonstrated at 12 weeks of gestation, with a difference in pregnancy rate and an associated confidence interval (CI) that were both within the non-inferiority margin.MVP is routinely used in most clinics for luteal support in IVF, but it is associated with side effects, such as vaginal irritation and discharge, as well as poor patient acceptance. Dydrogesterone may be an alternative treatment due to its patient-friendly oral administration.Lotus I was an international Phase III randomized controlled trial, performed across 38 sites, from August 2013 to March 2016. Subjects were premenopausal women (>18 to <42 years of age; body mass index (BMI) ?18 to ?30 kg/m2) with a documented history of infertility who were planning to undergo IVF. A centralized electronic system was used for randomization, and the study investigators, sponsor's study team, and subjects remained blinded throughout the study.In total, 1031 subjects were randomized to receive either oral dydrogesterone (n = 520) or MVP (n = 511). Luteal support was started on the day of oocyte retrieval and continued until 12 weeks of gestation (Week 10), if a positive pregnancy test was obtained at 2 weeks after embryo transfer.In the full analysis set (FAS), 497 and 477 subjects in the oral dydrogesterone and MVP groups, respectively, had an embryo transfer. Non-inferiority of oral dydrogesterone was demonstrated, with pregnancy rates at 12 weeks of gestation of 37.6% and 33.1% in the oral dydrogesterone and MVP treatment groups, respectively (difference 4.7%; 95% CI: -1.2-10.6%). Live birth rates of 34.6% (172 mothers with 213 newborns) and 29.8% (142 mothers with 158 newborns) were obtained in the dydrogesterone and MVP groups, respectively (difference 4.9%; 95% CI: -0.8-10.7%). Oral dydrogesterone was well tolerated and had a similar safety profile to MVP.The analysis of the results was powered to consider the clinical pregnancy rate, but the live birth rate may be of greater clinical interest. Conclusions relating to the differences between treatments in live birth rate, observed in this study, should therefore be made with caution.Oral dydrogesterone may replace MVP as the standard of care for luteal phase support in IVF, owing to the oral route being more patient-friendly than intravaginal administration, as well as it being a well tolerated and efficacious treatment.Sponsored and supported by Abbott Established Pharmaceuticals Division. H.T.'s institution has received grants from Merck, MSD, Goodlife, Cook, Roche, Besins, Ferring and Mithra (now Allergan) and H.T. has received consultancy fees from Finox, Ferring, Abbott, ObsEva and Ovascience. G.S. has nothing to disclose. E.K. is an employee of Abbott GmbH. G.G. has received investigator fees from Abbott during the conduct of the study; outside of this submitted work, G.G. has received personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, Ferring, Merck-Serono, Finox, TEVA, Glycotope, as well as personal fees from VitroLife, NMC Healthcare LLC, ReprodWissen LLC and ZIVA LLC.NCT01850030 (clinicaltrials.gov).19 April 2013.23 August 2013.

SUBMITTER: Tournaye H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5400051 | biostudies-literature | 2017 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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.

Tournaye Herman H Sukhikh Gennady T GT Kahler Elke E Griesinger Georg G

Human reproduction (Oxford, England) 20170501 5

<h4>Study question</h4>Is oral dydrogesterone 30 mg daily (10 mg three times daily [TID]) non-inferior to micronized vaginal progesterone (MVP) 600 mg daily (200 mg TID) for luteal support in in vitro fertilization (IVF), assessed by the presence of fetal heartbeats determined by transvaginal ultrasound at 12 weeks of gestation?<h4>Summary answer</h4>Non-inferiority of oral dydrogesterone versus MVP was demonstrated at 12 weeks of gestation, with a difference in pregnancy rate and an associated ...[more]

PMID: 28333318

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study questionIs the ongoing pregnancy rate with a new aqueous formulation of subcutaneous progesterone (Prolutex(®)) non-inferior to vaginal progesterone (Endometrin(®)) when used for luteal phase support of in vitro fertilization?Summary answerIn the per-protocol (PP) population, the ongoing pregnancy rates per oocyte retrieval at 12 weeks of gestation were comparable between Prolutex and Endometrin (41.6 versus 44.4%), with a difference between groups of -2.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) -9.7, 4.2), consistent with the non-inferiority of subcutaneous progesterone for luteal phase support.What is known alreadyLuteal phase support has been clearly demonstrated to improve pregnancy rates in women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF). Because of the increased risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome associated with the use of hCG, progesterone has become the treatment of choice for luteal phase support.Study design, size, durationThis prospective, open-label, randomized, controlled, parallel-group, multicentre, two-arm, non-inferiority study was performed at eight fertility clinics. A total of 800 women, aged 18-42 years, with a BMI of ≤ 30 kg/m(2), with <3 prior completed assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles, exhibiting baseline (Days 2-3) FSH of ≤ 15 IU/L and undergoing IVF at 8 centres (seven private, one academic) in the USA, were enrolled from January 2009 through June 2011.Participants/materials, setting, methodsIn total, 800 women undergoing IVF were randomized after retrieval of at least three oocytes to an aqueous preparation of progesterone administered subcutaneously (25 mg daily) or vaginal progesterone (100 mg bid daily). Randomization was performed to enrol 100 patients at each site using a randomization list that was generated with Statistical Analysis Software (SAS(®)). If a viable pregnancy occurred, progesterone treatment was continued up to 12 weeks of gestation.Main results and the role of chanceUsing a PP analysis, which included all patients who received an embryo transfer (Prolutex = 392; Endometrin = 390), the ongoing pregnancy rate per retrieval for subcutaneous versus vaginal progesterone was 41.6 versus 44.4%, with a difference between groups of -2.8% (95% CI -9.7, 4.2), consistent with the non-inferiority of subcutaneous progesterone for luteal phase support. In addition, rates of initial positive β-hCG (56.4% subcutaneous versus 59.0% vaginal; 95% CI -9.5, 4.3), clinical intrauterine pregnancy with fetal cardiac activity (42.6 versus 46.4%; 95% CI -10.8, 3.2), implantation defined as number of gestational sacs divided by number of embryos transferred (33.2 versus 35.1%; 95% CI -7.6, 4.0), live birth (41.1 versus 43.1%; 95% CI -8.9, 4.9) and take-home baby (41.1 versus 42.6%; 95% CI -8.4, 5.4) were comparable. Both formulations were well-tolerated, with no difference in serious adverse events. Analysis with the intention-to-treat population also demonstrated no difference for any outcomes between the treatment groups.Limitations, reasons for cautionThe conclusions are limited to the progesterone dosing regimen studied and duration of treatment for the patient population examined in this study.Wider implications of the findingsSubcutaneous progesterone represents a novel option for luteal phase support in women undergoing IVF who for personal reasons prefer not to use a vaginal preparation or who wish to avoid the side effects of vaginal or i.m. routes of administration.Study funding/competing interestsThe study was funded by Institut Biochimique SA (IBSA). CAJ, BC, ST and CJ are employees of IBSA. FH currently consults for IBSA.Trial registration numberNCT00828191.

Project description:Progesterone is essential for the maintenance of pregnancy. Several small trials have suggested that progesterone supplementation may reduce the risk of miscarriage in women with recurrent or threatened miscarriage. Cochrane Reviews summarized the evidence and found that the trials were small with substantial methodologic weaknesses. Since then, the effects of first-trimester use of vaginal micronized progesterone have been evaluated in 2 large, high-quality, multicenter placebo-controlled trials, one targeting women with unexplained recurrent miscarriages (the PROMISE [PROgesterone in recurrent MIScarriagE] trial) and the other targeting women with early pregnancy bleeding (the PRISM [PRogesterone In Spontaneous Miscarriage] trial). The PROMISE trial studied 836 women from 45 hospitals in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands and found a 3% greater live birth rate with progesterone but with substantial statistical uncertainty. The PRISM trial studied 4153 women from 48 hospitals in the United Kingdom and found a 3% greater live birth rate with progesterone, but with a P value of .08. A key finding, first observed in the PROMISE trial, and then replicated in the PRISM trial, was that treatment with vaginal micronized progesterone 400 mg twice daily was associated with increasing live birth rates according to the number of previous miscarriages. Prespecified PRISM trial subgroup analysis in women with the dual risk factors of previous miscarriage(s) and current pregnancy bleeding fulfilled all 11 conditions for credible subgroup analysis. For the subgroup of women with a history of 1 or more miscarriage(s) and current pregnancy bleeding, the live birth rate was 75% (689/914) with progesterone vs 70% (619/886) with placebo (rate difference 5%; risk ratio, 1.09, 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.15; P=.003). The benefit was greater for the subgroup of women with 3 or more previous miscarriages and current pregnancy bleeding; live birth rate was 72% (98/137) with progesterone vs 57% (85/148) with placebo (rate difference 15%; risk ratio, 1.28, 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.51; P=.004). No short-term safety concerns were identified from the PROMISE and PRISM trials. Therefore, women with a history of miscarriage who present with bleeding in early pregnancy may benefit from the use of vaginal micronized progesterone 400 mg twice daily. Women and their care providers should use the findings for shared decision-making.

Project description:Purpose:The aim of this audit was to assess the overall experience and patient convenience of vaginal progesterone tablets (Lutigest®, marketed as Endometrin® in the USA) used for luteal phase support (LPS) during in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. Patients and methods:This questionnaire-based audit included responses from 100 patients undergoing IVF treatment at six IVF clinics in the UK from September 2015 to November 2016. Fourteen days after starting progesterone supplementation for LPS during their IVF treatment, patients rated overall experience and perceived convenience of the prescribed progesterone by completing a questionnaire. Results:Of the 100 patients included, 96 received vaginal progesterone tablets for LPS. Overall, 53.1% (51/96) indicated that the progesterone tablets were "very easy" to use; 42.7% (41/96) and 44.8% (43/96) found it "very convenient" or "neither convenient or inconvenient" to administer the tablet, respectively. Overall experience with using progesterone tablets was rated as "very comfortable" by 34.4% (33/96) and "neither comfortable or uncomfortable" by 56.3% (54/96) of patients. The applicator was used by 93.8% (90/96) of patients to administer the tablet, and 86.5% (83/96) indicated that the applicator was easy to clean for repeated use. A total of 33 patients had a previous IVF cycle during which they were prescribed vaginal progesterone pessaries for LPS. Compared with progesterone pessaries, the majority found treatment with progesterone tablets to be more comfortable (60.6%; 20/33) and more convenient (57.6%; 19/33) and indicated that the progesterone tablet was their preferred progesterone formulation for LPS (60.6%; 20/33). Conclusion:These findings offer insights into real-world patient experiences with the progesterone vaginal tablet formulation. The results suggest overall patient convenience, ease, and comfort with using progesterone vaginal tablets for LPS. The majority of patients found progesterone vaginal tablets more convenient and comfortable to use compared with progesterone pessaries.

Dataset Information

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.

Publications

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.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets