Barbosa Marina Wanderley Paes, Valadares Natália Paes Barbosa, Barbosa Antônio César Paes, Amaral Adelino Silva, Iglesias José Rubens, Nastri Carolina Oliveira, Martins Wellington de Paula, Nakagawa Hitomi Miura
Genesis - Centro de Assistência em Reprodução Humana, Brasília, DF, Brazil.
FMRP - USP - Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.
JBRA Assist Reprod. 2018 Jun 1;22(2):148-156. doi: 10.5935/1518-0557.20180018.
To identify, appraise, and summarize the evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral dydrogesterone to vaginal progesterone capsules for luteal-phase support (LPS) in women offered fresh or frozen embryo transfers following in vitro fertilization.
Two independent authors screened the literature for papers based on titles and abstracts, then selected the studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Dydrogesterone and progesterone were compared based on risk ratios (RR) and the precision of the estimates was assessed through the 95% confidence interval (CI).
An electronic search performed on June 7, 2017 retrieved 376 records, nine of which were papers deemed eligible and included in this systematic review and quantitative analysis. Good quality evidence indicates that oral dydrogesterone provided at least similar results than vaginal progesterone capsules on live birth/ongoing pregnancy (RR=1.08, 95%CI=0.92-1.26, I2=29%, 8 RCTs, 3,386 women) and clinical pregnancy rates (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.27; I2=43%; 9 RCTs; 4,061 women). Additionally, moderate quality evidence suggests there is no relevant difference on miscarriage rates (RR=0.92, 95%CI=0.68-1.26, I2=6%, 8 RCTs, 988 clinical pregnancies; the quality of the evidence was downgraded because of imprecision).
Good quality evidence from RCTs suggest that oral dydrogesterone provides at least similar reproductive outcomes than vaginal progesterone capsules when used for LPS in women undergoing embryo transfers. Dydrogesterone is a reasonable option and the choice of either of the medications should be based on cost and side effects.
识别、评估和总结随机对照试验(RCT)的证据,这些试验比较了口服地屈孕酮与阴道用黄体酮胶囊在体外受精后接受新鲜或冷冻胚胎移植的女性黄体期支持(LPS)中的效果。
两位独立作者根据标题和摘要筛选文献以寻找相关论文,然后选择研究、提取数据并评估偏倚风险。根据地风险比(RR)比较地屈孕酮和黄体酮,并通过95%置信区间(CI)评估估计值的精确度。
2017年6月7日进行的电子检索共检索到376条记录,其中9篇论文被认为符合条件并纳入本系统评价和定量分析。高质量证据表明,在活产/持续妊娠方面(RR = 1.08,95%CI = 0.92 - 1.26,I² = 29%,8项RCT,3386名女性)以及临床妊娠率方面(RR = 1.10,95%CI = 0.95至1.27;I² = 43%;9项RCT;4061名女性),口服地屈孕酮至少与阴道用黄体酮胶囊效果相似。此外,中等质量证据表明流产率无显著差异(RR = 0.92,95%CI = 0.68 - 1.26,I² = 6%,8项RCT,988例临床妊娠;由于估计值不精确,证据质量被降级)。
随机对照试验的高质量证据表明,在接受胚胎移植的女性中用于黄体期支持时,口服地屈孕酮至少与阴道用黄体酮胶囊具有相似的生殖结局。地屈孕酮是一个合理的选择,两种药物的选择应基于成本和副作用。