Comparison of oral dydrogesterone and vaginal micronized progesterone for luteal phase support in intrauterine insemination

References

• Aboulghar MA, Mansour RT, Serour GI, et al. Diagnosis and management of unexplained infertility: an update. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2003;267:177–188.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Isaksson R, Tiitinen A. Present concept of unexplained infertility. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2004;18:278–290.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Flynn N. Assessment and treatment for people with fertility problems: NICE guideline. Br J Gen Pract. 2014;64:50–51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steures P, van der Steeg JW, Hompes PG, et al. Intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation versus expectant management for couples with unexplained subfertility and an intermediate prognosis: a randomised clinical trial. Lancet. 2006;368:216–221.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhattacharya S, Harrild K, Mollison J, et al. Clomifene citrate or unstimulated intrauterine insemination compared with expectant management for unexplained infertility: pragmatic randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2008;337:a716.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nandi A, Bhide P, Hooper R, et al. Intrauterine insemination with gonadotropin stimulation or in vitro fertilization for the treatment of unexplained subfertility: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:1329–1335.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farquhar CM, Liu E, Armstrong S, et al. Intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation versus expectant management for unexplained infertility (TUI): a pragmatic, open-label, randomised, controlled, two-centre trial. Lancet. 2018;391:441–450.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malchau SS, Loft A, Henningsen AK, et al. Perinatal outcomes in 6,338 singletons born after intrauterine insemination in Denmark, 2007 to 2012: the influence of ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:1110–1116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miralpeix E, Gonzalez-Comadran M, Sola I, et al. Efficacy of luteal phase support with vaginal progesterone in intrauterine insemination: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31:89–100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kyrou D, Fatemi HM, Tournaye H, et al. Luteal phase support in normo-ovulatory women stimulated with clomiphene citrate for intrauterine insemination: need or habit? Hum Reprod. 2010;25:2501–2506.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agha-Hosseini M, Rahmani M, Alleyassin A, et al. The effect of progesterone supplementation on pregnancy rates in controlled ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination cycles: a randomized prospective trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012;165:249–253.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erdem A, Erdem M, Atmaca S, et al. Impact of luteal phase support on pregnancy rates in intrauterine insemination cycles: a prospective randomized study. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:2508–2513.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conley AJ. Review of the reproductive endocrinology of the pregnant and parturient mare. Theriogenology. 2016; 86:355–365.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nandi A, El-Toukhy T. Stimulated intrauterine insemination for unexplained subfertility. Lancet. 2018;391:404–405.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tavaniotou A, Smitz J, Bourgain C, et al. Comparison between different routes of progesterone administration as luteal phase support in infertility treatments. Hum Reprod Update. 2000;6:139–148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beltsos AN, Sanchez MD, Doody KJ, et al. Patients' administration preferences: progesterone vaginal insert (Endometrin(R)) compared to intramuscular progesterone for Luteal phase support. Reprod Health. 2014;11:78.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lockwood G, Griesinger G, Cometti B, et al. Subcutaneous progesterone versus vaginal progesterone gel for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization: a noninferiority randomized controlled study. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:112–119.e3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Linden M, Buckingham K, Farquhar C, et al. Luteal phase support for assisted reproduction cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;Cd009154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chakravarty BN, Shirazee HH, Dam P, et al. Oral dydrogesterone versus intravaginal micronised progesterone as luteal phase support in assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles: results of a randomised study. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2005;97:416–420.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patki A, Pawar VC. Modulating fertility outcome in assisted reproductive technologies by the use of dydrogesterone. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2007;23:68–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barbosa MW, Silva LR, Navarro PA, et al. Dydrogesterone vs progesterone for luteal-phase support: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;48:161–170.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tournaye H, Sukhikh GT, Kahler E, et al. 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;32:1019.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanczyk FZ, Hapgood JP, Winer S, et al. Progestogens used in postmenopausal hormone therapy: differences in their pharmacological properties, intracellular actions, and clinical effects. Endocr Rev. 2013;34:171–208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schindler AE, Campagnoli C, Druckmann R, et al. Classification and pharmacology of progestins. Maturitas. 2003;46:7–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griesinger G, Blockeel C, Tournaye H. Oral dydrogesterone for luteal phase support in fresh in vitro fertilization cycles: a new standard?. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:756–762.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar