Cargando…

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

STUDY QUESTION: 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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tournaye, Herman, Sukhikh, Gennady T., Kahler, Elke, Griesinger, Georg
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5400051/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28333318
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dex023
_version_ 1783230754664218624
author Tournaye, Herman
Sukhikh, Gennady T.
Kahler, Elke
Griesinger, Georg
author_facet Tournaye, Herman
Sukhikh, Gennady T.
Kahler, Elke
Griesinger, Georg
author_sort Tournaye, Herman
collection PubMed
description STUDY QUESTION: 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? SUMMARY ANSWER: 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. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: 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. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: 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/m(2)) 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. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: 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. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: 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. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: 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. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: 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. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): 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. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01850030 (clinicaltrials.gov). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 19 April 2013. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLLMENT: 23 August 2013.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5400051
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54000512017-04-28 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 Sukhikh, Gennady T. Kahler, Elke Griesinger, Georg Hum Reprod Original Articles STUDY QUESTION: 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? SUMMARY ANSWER: 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. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: 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. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: 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/m(2)) 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. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: 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. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: 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. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: 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. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: 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. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): 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. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01850030 (clinicaltrials.gov). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 19 April 2013. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLLMENT: 23 August 2013. Oxford University Press 2017-05 2017-03-01 /pmc/articles/PMC5400051/ /pubmed/28333318 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dex023 Text en © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Original Articles
Tournaye, Herman
Sukhikh, Gennady T.
Kahler, Elke
Griesinger, Georg
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
title 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
title_full 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
title_fullStr 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
title_full_unstemmed 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
title_short 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
title_sort 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
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5400051/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28333318
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dex023
work_keys_str_mv AT tournayeherman aphaseiiirandomizedcontrolledtrialcomparingtheefficacysafetyandtolerabilityoforaldydrogesteroneversusmicronizedvaginalprogesteroneforlutealsupportininvitrofertilization
AT sukhikhgennadyt aphaseiiirandomizedcontrolledtrialcomparingtheefficacysafetyandtolerabilityoforaldydrogesteroneversusmicronizedvaginalprogesteroneforlutealsupportininvitrofertilization
AT kahlerelke aphaseiiirandomizedcontrolledtrialcomparingtheefficacysafetyandtolerabilityoforaldydrogesteroneversusmicronizedvaginalprogesteroneforlutealsupportininvitrofertilization
AT griesingergeorg aphaseiiirandomizedcontrolledtrialcomparingtheefficacysafetyandtolerabilityoforaldydrogesteroneversusmicronizedvaginalprogesteroneforlutealsupportininvitrofertilization
AT tournayeherman phaseiiirandomizedcontrolledtrialcomparingtheefficacysafetyandtolerabilityoforaldydrogesteroneversusmicronizedvaginalprogesteroneforlutealsupportininvitrofertilization
AT sukhikhgennadyt phaseiiirandomizedcontrolledtrialcomparingtheefficacysafetyandtolerabilityoforaldydrogesteroneversusmicronizedvaginalprogesteroneforlutealsupportininvitrofertilization
AT kahlerelke phaseiiirandomizedcontrolledtrialcomparingtheefficacysafetyandtolerabilityoforaldydrogesteroneversusmicronizedvaginalprogesteroneforlutealsupportininvitrofertilization
AT griesingergeorg phaseiiirandomizedcontrolledtrialcomparingtheefficacysafetyandtolerabilityoforaldydrogesteroneversusmicronizedvaginalprogesteroneforlutealsupportininvitrofertilization