Trial reportHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2017
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.
Trial report in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to 5 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 56 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Double-Blind, Double-Dummy, Randomized, Two-arm, Multicenter Study Comparing the Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of Oral Dydrogesterone 30 mg Daily Versus Intravaginal Micronized Progesterone Capsules 600 mg Daily for Luteal Support in In-Vitro Fertilization (Lotus I)
Prospective, Clinical Cohort Study on the Endocrinology and Vaginal/Endometrial Microbiome of the Luteal Phase and Pregnancy After Embryo Transfer in Assisted Reproduction
Oral Dydrogesterone Versus Micronized Vaginal Progesterone for Luteal Phase Support in In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF)/ IntraCytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI): Pharmacokinetics and the Impact on the Endometrium, the Microbiota of the Genital Tract and the Peripheral Immunology. Double Blind Crossover Study.
Micronized Progesterone Versus Micronized Progesterone Plus Dydrogesterone for Luteal Phase Support in Frozen - Thawed Transfer: a Prospective Cohort Study
Vaginal Versus Combined Use of Progesterone in Fresh IVF/ICSI Cycles
Who cites it
56 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 137 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retrospective cohort study and meta-analysis of individualized luteal phase support with additional oral dydrogesterone in artificially prepared frozen embryo transfer cycles.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Pooled it
- Progestogen therapy in threatened miscarriage and unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss: Recommendations by the Thai interest group.The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research · 2025Guideline
- Ovulation-induced frozen embryo transfer regimens in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024Pooled it
- Luteal phase support for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection fresh cycles: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2021Pooled it
- Luteal Phase Support Using Subcutaneous Progesterone: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Oral dydrogesterone vs. vaginal progesterone capsules for luteal-phase support in women undergoing embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2018Pooled it
- Dydrogesterone versus micronized vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in artificial cycle frozen embryo transfer (REMODEL): a pilot prospective randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Trial
- A randomised control trial on oral dydrogesteroneJournal of medicine and life · 2023Trial
- Progesterone Exposure in Pregnancy, Obstetric Stabilization, and Developmental Outcomes: A Focused Review of Direct and Indirect Pathways.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Oral dydrogesterone versus oral micronized progesterone: Interim analysis of a randomized controlled trial in pregnant women with threatened miscarriage.International journal of reproductive biomedicine · 2026Article
- Is there an effect of the start day of luteal phase support on pregnancy outcomes in natural vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer?BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Progesterone in recurrent pregnancy loss: from controversial efficacy to mechanism-based patient stratification.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Comparison of oral dydrogesterone and vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in natural and modified natural cycle frozen embryo transfers.Journal of ovarian research · 2025Article
- Exploring potential biomarkers and signaling pathways in neuroinflammation post-traumatic brain injury: insights for synthetic compound-based interventions.Inflammopharmacology · 2025Review
- Oral Dydrogesterone Versus Vaginal Progesterone for Luteal Phase Support in Frozen-Thawed Embryo Transfer Cycles: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- Effectiveness, safety, and practicality of intramuscular progesterone in restoring pregnancy outcomes during frozen embryo transfers.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
- Live birth rates are unrelated to sex-steroid levels on ET day in a dydrogesterone-based 'programmed-ovulatory FET' protocol: a multi-centric prospective cohort study.Human reproduction open · 2025Article
- Unmasking the risk: clinical trialsHuman reproduction open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
study questionIs 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/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. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,
methodsIn 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
findingsOral 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.