Comparative evaluation of efficacy and safety of micronized progesterone in assisted reproductive technology programs
- Authors: Malyshkina A.I.1, Nazarov S.B.1, Semenenko S.S.1, Kozelkova E.V.1
-
Affiliations:
- V.N. Gorodkov Ivanovo Research Institute of Maternity and Childhood, Ministry of Health of Russia
- Issue: No 5 (2018)
- Pages: 122-126
- Section: Articles
- URL: https://journals.eco-vector.com/0300-9092/article/view/248224
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.18565/aig.2018.5.122-126
- ID: 248224
Cite item
Open Access
Access granted
Abstract
Objective. To compare the eff icacy of micronized progesterone formulations, such as prajisan and utrogestan as vaginal capsules in supporting the luteal phase in in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles. Subjects and methods. This was a single-center observational retrospective study. Women who had been planned to have IVF were randomized to use prajisan or utrogestan in a daily dose of 600 mg as vaginal capsules. The main parameter of achieving the goal was to estimate the number of positive pregnancy tests on day 15 after embryo transfer, as well as abdominal and transvaginal ultrasound findings. Results. The investigation enrolled 264 patients, of whom 149 women received prajisan and 115 had utrogestan. Pragisan was as effective as the latter: the cumulative pregnancy rate was 42.95% (64) and 41.74% (48) in the prajisan and utrogestan groups, respectively. The rate of pregnancy ending in childbirth was 32.21% (48) and 33.04% (38) in these groups, respectively. Prajisan and utrogestan had a similar safety profile. No undesirable adverse reactions were recorded in the patients of both compared groups. Conclusion. The study demonstrated that intravaginal prajisan was as effective as intravaginal utrogestan. Prajisan can successfully support the luteal phase in IVF programs.
Full Text
About the authors
Anna Ivanovna Malyshkina
V.N. Gorodkov Ivanovo Research Institute of Maternity and Childhood, Ministry of Health of Russia
Email: ivniimid@inbox.ru
MD, director
Sergey Borisovich Nazarov
V.N. Gorodkov Ivanovo Research Institute of Maternity and Childhood, Ministry of Health of Russia
Email: ivniimid@inbox.ru
MD, professor, deputy director
Svetlana S. Semenenko
V.N. Gorodkov Ivanovo Research Institute of Maternity and Childhood, Ministry of Health of Russia
Email: ivniimid@inbox.ru
Candidate of Medical Science, Head of the Department
Elena Vladimirovna Kozelkova
V.N. Gorodkov Ivanovo Research Institute of Maternity and Childhood, Ministry of Health of Russia
Email: ivniimid@inbox.ru
clinical resident of 2nd year of training in the specialty “Obstetrics and Gynecology”
References
- Иакашвили С.Н., Самчук П.М. Ультразвуковая и лабораторная диагностика плацентарной недостаточности у беременных после экстракорпорального оплодотворения в зависимости от формы бесплодия. Российский вестник акушера-гинеколога. 2017; 17(6): 44-8.
- Michnova L., Dostal J., Kudela M., Hamal P., Langova K. Vaginal use of micronized progesterone for luteal support.A randomized study comparing Utrogestan and Crinone 8. Biomed. Pap. Med. Fac. Univ. Palacky Olomouc Czech. Repub. 2017; 161(1): 86-91.
- Palomba S., Santagni S., La Sala G.B. Progesteron administration for luteaphase deficiency in human reproduction: an old or new issue? J. Ovarian Res. 2015; 8: 77.
- Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine in collaboration with Society for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility.
- Progesterone supplementation during the luteal phase and in early pregnancyin the treatment of infertility: an educational bulletin. Fertil. Steril. 2008; 90(5, Suppl.): S150-3.
- Галлямова Е.М., Перминова С.Г., Дуринян Э.Р., Митюрина Е.В. Современные подходы к ведению лютеиновой фазы в программе экстракорпорального оплодотворения. Акушерство и гинекология. 2014; 1: 15-22.
- Zhu X., Ye H., Fu Y. Use of Utrogestan during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in normally ovulating women undergoing in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatments in combination with a “freeze all” strategy: a randomized controlled dose-finding study of 100 mg versus 200 mg. Fertil. Steril. 2017; 107(2): 379-86.
- Савельева Г.М., Сухих Г.Т., Серов В.Н., Радзинский В.Е., Манухин И.Б., ред. Гинекология. Национальное руководство. 2-е изд. М.: ГЭОТАР-Медиа; 2017. 1008с.
- 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.
- Child T., Leonard S.A., Evans J.S., Lass A. Systematic review of the clinical efficacy of vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in assisted reproductive technology cycles. Reprod. Biomed. Online. 2018; Feb. 22.
- Gün І., Ozdamar О., §ahin S., Çetingoz E., Sofuoglu K. Progesterone vaginal capsule versus vaginal gel for luteal support in normoresponder women undergoing long agonist IVF/ICSI cycles. Ginekol. Pol. 2016; 87(5): 372-7.
Supplementary files
