ArticleHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2018
Oral dydrogesterone versus intravaginal micronized progesterone gel for luteal phase support in IVF: a randomized clinical trial.
Article in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 5 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 48 papers, 2 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 Randomized, Open-label, Two-arm, Multicenter Study Comparing the Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of Oral Dydrogesterone 30 mg Daily Versus Crinone 8% Intravaginal Progesterone Gel 90 mg Daily for Luteal Support in In-Vitro Fertilization (LOTUS II)
Which Luteal Support in Frozen-Thawed Embryo Transfer Cycles: A Randomized Controlled Trial
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
A Phase III Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of Two Formulations of Vaginal Micronized Progesterone
Who cites it
48 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 104 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Pooled 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
- Progesterone Vaginal Gel or Combined Medication for Luteal-Phase Support of Frozen-Thawed Embryo Transfer Cycles: A Single-Centre, Chinese, Randomized, Open-Label, Pilot Study.Gynecologic and obstetric investigation · 2025Trial
- A randomised control trial on oral dydrogesteroneJournal of medicine and life · 2023Trial
- Comparison between oral dydrogesterone versus no drugs in clinical outcome within the natural cycle-frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycle: a retrospective analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Safety profile of progesterone: Insights from an FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS)-based pharmacovigilance study.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Observational
- Congenital anomalies after first-trimester dydrogesterone therapy during in vitro fertilization.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2025Article
- Progestins - a review of clinical application in gynecology.Annals of medicine · 2025Review
- 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
- Article
- Impact of GnRH agonist trigger on subsequent follicular phase length in ART cycles.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Article
- 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
- 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
- Birth defects reporting and the use of dydrogesterone: a disproportionality analysis from the World Health Organization pharmacovigilance database (VigiBase).Human reproduction open · 2025Article
- Unmasking the risk: clinical trialsHuman reproduction open · 2025Article
- Comparison of luteal support protocols in fresh IVF/ICSI cycles: a network meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Corpus luteum and progesterones in embryo transfer cycles: current challenges of different luteal phase support protocols.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2024Article
- Comparison between oral dydrogesterone versus micronized vaginal progesterone gel in clinical outcome within the first HRT-FET cycle: a retrospective analysis.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 8 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
study questionIs oral dydrogesterone 30 mg daily non-inferior to 8% micronized vaginal progesterone (MVP) gel 90 mg daily for luteal phase support in IVF? SUMMARY ANSWER: Oral dydrogesterone demonstrated non-inferiority to MVP gel for the presence of fetal heartbeats at 12 weeks of gestation (non-inferiority margin 10%). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The standard of care for luteal phase support in IVF is the use of MVP; however, it is associated with vaginal irritation, discharge and poor patient compliance. Oral dydrogesterone may replace MVP as the standard of care if it is found to be efficacious with an acceptable safety profile. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Lotus II was a randomized, open-label, multicenter, Phase III, non-inferiority study conducted at 37 IVF centers in 10 countries worldwide, from August 2015 until May 2017. In total, 1034 premenopausal women (>18 to <42 years of age) undergoing IVF were randomized 1:1 (stratified by country and age group), using an Interactive Web Response System, to receive oral dydrogesterone 30 mg or 8% MVP gel 90 mg daily. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,
methodsSubjects received either oral dydrogesterone (n = 520) or MVP gel (n = 514) on the day of oocyte retrieval, and luteal phase support continued until 12 weeks of gestation. The primary outcome measure was the presence of fetal heartbeats at 12 weeks of gestation, as determined by transvaginal ultrasound. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Non-inferiority of oral dydrogesterone was demonstrated, with pregnancy rates in the full analysis sample (FAS) at 12 weeks of gestation of 38.7% (191/494) and 35.0% (171/489) in the oral dydrogesterone and MVP gel groups, respectively (adjusted difference, 3.7%; 95% CI: -2.3 to 9.7). Live birth rates in the FAS of 34.4% (170/494) and 32.5% (159/489) were obtained for the oral dydrogesterone and MVP gel groups, respectively (adjusted difference 1.9%; 95% CI: -4.0 to 7.8). Oral dydrogesterone was well tolerated and had a similar safety profile to MVP gel. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The analysis of the results was powered to consider the ongoing pregnancy rate, but a primary objective of greater clinical interest may have been the live birth rate. This study was open-label as it was not technically feasible to make a placebo applicator for MVP gel, which may have increased the risk of bias for the subjective endpoints reported in this study. While the use of oral dydrogesterone in fresh-cycle IVF was investigated in this study, further research is needed to investigate its efficacy in programmed frozen-thawed cycles where corpora lutea do not exist. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
findingsThis study demonstrates that oral dydrogesterone is a viable alternative to MVP gel, due to its comparable efficacy and tolerability profiles. Owing to its patient-friendly oral administration route, dydrogesterone may replace MVP as the standard of care for luteal phase support in fresh-cycle IVF. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS(S): This study was sponsored and supported by Abbott. G.G. has received investigator fees from Abbott during the conduct of the study. Outside of this submitted work, G.G. has received non-financial support from MSD, Ferring, Merck-Serono, IBSA, Finox, TEVA, Glycotope and Gedeon Richter, as well as personal fees from MSD, Ferring, Merck-Serono, IBSA, Finox, TEVA, Glycotope, VitroLife, NMC Healthcare, ReprodWissen, Biosilu, Gedeon Richter and ZIVA. C.B. is the President of the Belgian Society of Reproductive Medicine (unpaid) and Section Editor of Reproductive BioMedicine Online. C.B. has received grants from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, participated in an MSD sponsored trial, and has received payment from Ferring, MSD, Biomérieux, Abbott and Merck for lectures. G.S. has no conflicts of interest to be declared. A.P. is the General Secretary of the Indian Society of Assisted Reproduction (2017-2018). B.D. is President of Pune Obstetric and Gynecological Society (2017-2018). D.-Z.Y. has no conflicts of interest to be declared. Z.-J.C. has no conflicts of interest to be declared. E.K. is an employee of Abbott Laboratories GmbH, Hannover, Germany and owns shares in Abbott. C.P.-F. is an employee of Abbott GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden, Germany and owns shares in Abbott. H.T.'s institution has received grants from Merck, MSD, Goodlife, Cook, Roche, Origio, Besins, Ferring and Mithra (now Allergan); and H.T. has received consultancy fees from Finox-Gedeon Richter, Merck, Ferring, Abbott and ObsEva. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02491437 (clinicaltrials.gov). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 08 July 2015. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLLMENT: 17 August 2015.
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.