Back to Journals » Drug Design, Development and Therapy » Volume 13

Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation with Dydrogesterone versus Medroxyprogesterone Acetate in Women with Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome for in vitro Fertilization: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Authors Huang J, Xie Q, Lin J, Lu X, Zhu J, Gao H, Cai R, Kuang Y

Received 6 September 2019

Accepted for publication 29 November 2019

Published 3 January 2020 Volume 2019:13 Pages 4461—4470


Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewer comments 2

Editor who approved publication: Dr Anastasios Lymperopoulos

Jialyu Huang,* Qin Xie,* Jiaying Lin, Xuefeng Lu, Jing Zhu, Hongyuan Gao, Renfei Cai, Yanping Kuang

Department of Assisted Reproduction, Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200011, People’s Republic of China

*These authors contributed equally to this work

Correspondence: Renfei Cai; Yanping Kuang
Department of Assisted Reproduction, Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, 639 Zhizaoju Road, Shanghai 200011, People’s Republic of China
Tel +86-21-2327 1699 Ext 5539
Fax +86-21-6313 6856

Purpose: Dydrogesterone (DYG) is an alternative progestin in progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol with weaker pituitary suppression than medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) in normal ovulatory women. However, the endocrinological characteristics, oocyte retrieval and pregnancy outcomes of DYG application in polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) remain unclear.
Patients and methods: This retrospective cohort study included 420 PCOS patients who underwent controlled ovarian stimulation with human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) and DYG (n=105) or MPA (n=315) from January 2014 to December 2017. Baseline characteristics of the two groups were balanced with propensity score matching using the nearest-neighbor random matching algorithm in a ratio of 1:3. The primary outcome measure was the number of oocytes retrieved. Other main outcome measures included the number of viable embryos, incidence of premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surge and live birth rate per frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycle.
Results: A similar number of oocytes was retrieved in the two protocols (16.1±6.5 vs 15.1±10.0, P=0.342). Patients in both groups achieved consistent LH suppression with no premature LH surge detected. In the DYG + hMG group, the mean LH levels were significantly higher than the MPA + hMG group on cycle day 9–11 and trigger day (all P<0.001), and the dose of hMG was significantly lower (1710.7±431.6 vs 1891.3±402.2 IU, P<0.001). No significant between-group differences were found in the number of viable embryos (5.3±3.1 vs 5.0±4.1, P=0.139) and live birth rate per FET cycle (43.5% vs 47.7%, P=0.383). None of the participants experienced moderate-to-severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in either group.
Conclusion: Our results showed that the application of DYG in PPOS protocol could achieve comparable oocyte retrieval and pregnancy outcomes to MPA, but significantly reduce the consumption of gonadotropins in PCOS women for IVF treatment.

Keywords: polycystic ovary syndrome, dydrogesterone, medroxyprogesterone acetate, progestin-primed ovarian stimulation, in vitro fertilization

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]