UOG Journal Club: August 2016 Dydrogesterone versus progesterone for luteal- phase support: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
In the name of GOD In the name of GOD.
Advertisements

UOG Journal Club: September 2012 Perinatal outcome in women treated with progesterone for the prevention of preterm birth: a meta-analysis Sotiriadis A,
Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted reproductive technology in women with poor ovarian response. Subgroup analysis of Cochrane systematic.
Journal Club Alcohol and Health: Current Evidence January-February 2006.
Journal Club Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Health: Current Evidence July–August 2014.
Gut-directed hypnotherapy for functional abdominal pain or irritable bowel syndrome in children: a systematic review Journal club presentation
Enhanced recovery meta-analysis Kirsty Cattle Research Registrar.
Critical appraisal Systematic Review กิตติพันธุ์ ฤกษ์เกษม ภาควิชาศัลยศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยเชียงใหม่
Systematic Reviews.
A Systematic Review On The Hazards Of Aspirin Discontinuation Among Patients With Or At Risk For Coronary Artery Disease Giuseppe Biondi Zoccai Hemodynamics.
Endometrial scratching performed in the non-transfer cycle and outcome of assisted reproduction: a randomized controlled trial CO Nastri, RA Ferriani,
1. Title and Abstract Improving abstracts should be a goal not only for authors but also for editors because so few citation browsers ever read more than.
WEEK 3 EBCR – 8A Sri Puspita Amalia NP Lingga S Rienna Diansari Harsya DG Tutor : dr.Dewi Friska.
UOG Journal Club: July 2013 Intrafetal laser treatment for twin reversed arterial perfusion sequence: cohort study and meta-analysis G. Pagani, F. D’Antonio,
Objectives  Identify the key elements of a good randomised controlled study  To clarify the process of meta analysis and developing a systematic review.
P ROBIOTICS FOR THE PREVENTION OF PRETERM LABOUR Dr Mohammad Othman MB BS, PhD.
Journal Club Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Health: Current Evidence November-December 2012.
Evidence Based Practice (EBP) Riphah College of Rehabilitation Sciences(RCRS) Riphah International University Islamabad.
1 Lecture 10: Meta-analysis of intervention studies Introduction to meta-analysis Selection of studies Abstraction of information Quality scores Methods.
UOG Journal Club: July 2016 Ability of a preterm surveillance clinic to triage risk of preterm birth: a prospective cohort study J Min, HA Watson, NL Hezelgrave,
UOG Journal Club: June 2016 Single deepest vertical pocket or amniotic fluid index as evaluation test for predicting adverse pregnancy outcome (SAFE trial):
Contact: Patrick Phillips,
UOG Journal Club: August 2016
UOG Journal Club: February 2017
Surgery versus conservative management of endometriomas in subfertile women. A systematic review JACOB BRINK LAURSEN1, JEPPE B. SCHROLL2, KIRSTEN T. MACKLON3.
UOG Journal Club: February 2016
UOG Journal Club: March 2017
Psychosocial Combined with Agonist Maintenance Treatments versus Agonist Maintenance Treatments Alone for Treatment of Opioid Dependence (Review) Amato,
UOG Journal Club: August 2017
UOG Journal Club 1: September 2016.
a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
UOG Journal Club: July 2016 Ability of a preterm surveillance clinic to triage risk of preterm birth: a prospective cohort study J Min, HA Watson, NL Hezelgrave,
Systematic review of Present clinical reality
UOG Journal Club: March 2016
UOG Journal Club: June 2016 Single deepest vertical pocket or amniotic fluid index as evaluation test for predicting adverse pregnancy outcome (SAFE trial):
Brady Et Al., "sequential compression device compliance in postoperative obstetrics and gynecology patients", obstetrics and gynecology, vol. 125, no.
Effects of Uric acid- lowering therapy on renal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis Nephrol Dial Transplant (2014) 29: Vaughan Washco.
Table 2. RCTs analyzed illustrating SET superiority over DET
UOG Journal Club: October 2016
Isfahan University of Medical Sciences Dissertation defense meeting Resident of Gynecology and Obstetrics.
Supplementary Table 1. PRISMA checklist
a systematic review and meta-analysis
UOG Journal Club: March 2017
Y W Liao1, S Shaman1, C S Chean1, S S Poon1, A Soltan1
#696 Implants with Sinus Augmentation-The Merit of Bone Grafting? A Systematic Review Karim M. Fawzy El-Sayed1, 2 Dagmar E. Slot3 Shaimaa Nasr1 Samah Bahaa1.
Dr. Daniele Wikoff – ToxStrategies Experimental Biology 2017
Fatimah Al-Ani 1,2,. MD MRCP, Jose Maria Bastida Bermejo3,
UOG Journal Club: January 2018
UOG Journal Club: January 2018
Foroutan N1,2, Muratov S1,2, Levine M1,2
STROBE Statement revision
UOG Journal Club: April 2017
UOG Journal Club: December 2016
UOG Journal Club 1: September 2016.
Geir Smedslund, Ph.D.: Diakonhjemmet Hospital (DH)
Pearls Presentation Use of N-Acetylcysteine For prophylaxis of Radiocontrast Nephrotoxicity.
UOG Journal Club: August 2018
Introduction to Systematic Reviews
Writing Cochrane Protocol Cochrane Thailand Workshop 2017
UOG Journal Club: February 2019 systematic review and meta-analysis
Systematic review of the clinical efficacy of vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in assisted reproductive technology cycles  Tim Child, Saoirse.
Blastocyst versus cleaved embryo transfer: do we have enough evidence?
A meta-analysis of the route of administration of luteal phase support in assisted reproductive technology: vaginal versus intramuscular progesterone 
How to organize a journal club?
Does cinnamon reduce fasting blood glucose in Type II diabetics?
Effectiveness of Systemic Treatments for Pyoderma Gangrenosum: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies & Clinical Trials ACR Partridge1, JW Bai1,
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis -Part 2-
Trent Regional SAPC Conference 19 March 2019
Introduction to Systematic Reviews
UOG Journal Club: October 2019
Presentation transcript:

UOG Journal Club: August 2016 Dydrogesterone versus progesterone for luteal- phase support: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Barbosa MWP, Silva LR, Navarro PA, Ferriani RA, Nastri CO, Martins WP Volume 48, Issue 2, Date: August, pages 161–170 Journal Club slides prepared by Dr Aly Youssef (UOG Editor for Trainees)

Introduction Although multiple corpora lutea are formed after oocyte aspiration with assisted reproductive techniques (ART), it is accepted that oocyte aspiration promotes premature luteolysis and low serum progesterone levels during the luteal phase. Progesterone seems the best option for luteal-phase support (LPS) in these women and can be administered orally, intramuscularly, vaginally or rectally, with similar efficacy for each route of administration. Oral progesterone is easier to use, has less side effects and is cheaper in comparison with other routes of administration. However, it is subjected to substantial first pass metabolism resulting in a bioavailability of < 10%. Dydrogesterone is a synthetic progesterone with enhanced oral bioavailability which could overcome this issue. Dydrogesterone versus progesterone for luteal-phase support: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, Barbosa et al., UOG 2016

The objectives of this systematic review and meta- analysis were to identify, appraise and summarize the evidence from randomized controlled trials examining the efficacy, safety and tolerability of oral dydrogesterone compared with progesterone for LPS in women undergoing ART Aim of the study Dydrogesterone versus progesterone for luteal-phase support: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, Barbosa et al., UOG 2016

The authors searched the following electronic databases from inception for relevant RCTs: Cochrane CENTRAL, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Clinicaltrials.gov, ISRCTN Registry and WHO ICTRP. Additionally, they hand- searched the reference lists of included studies and related reviews. The eligibility criteria Truly randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral dydrogesterone with progesterone by any route of administration (oral, intramuscular, vaginal capsules or vaginal gel) for LPS in women undergoing ART (fresh or frozen embryo transfer following IVF/ICSI). Exclusion criteria Quasi- or pseudorandomized trials were excluded as were studies evaluating dydrogesterone for intrauterine insemination (IUI). Methods Dydrogesterone versus progesterone for luteal-phase support: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, Barbosa et al., UOG 2016

Overall quality of the body of evidence A table was generated to summarize the review findings. The quality of evidence for the main outcomes was evaluated using the GRADE Working Group recommendation: The quality of the evidence (and its interpretation) was judged as follows: high, moderate, low or very low Outcomes Primary outcome for effectiveness: live birth Primary outcome for adverse effect: dissatisfaction with treatment Secondary outcome: ongoing pregnancy Other outcomes: clinical pregnancy, miscarriage per clinical pregnancy (single fetal demise in twin or triplet pregnancies was not counted as a miscarriage) and any reported side effects. Methods Dydrogesterone versus progesterone for luteal-phase support: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, Barbosa et al., UOG 2016

Results Identification by electronic search (n = 343 records) CENTRAL (n=33), PubMed (n=66), Scopus (n=192), Clinical trials (n=5), Current controlled trials (n=0), WHO ITRP (n=7), Web of Science (n=40) Screened on basis of title and abstract (n=343 records) Excluded (n=324) Duplicates (n=106) Clearly did not meet eligibility criteria (n=218) Awaiting classification (ongoing studies without results) (n=2 studies, from 3 records) Assessed completely for eligibility (n=19 records) Included in review and quantitative analysis (n=8 studies, from 12 records) Dydrogesterone versus progesterone for luteal-phase support: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, Barbosa et al., UOG 2016 Excluded (n=4 studies from 4 records) Study evaluated women undergoing IUI (n=1) Study not randomized (n=3)

Outcomes No study reported live birth; ongoing pregnancy was reported in 3 studies; clinical pregnancy was reported in 6 studies; miscarriage was reported in 7 studies; dissatisfaction in 3 studies; and side effects in 2 studies Study characteristics and participants: 8 studies were included in the review, including a total of 3809 women undergoing ART: 1523 were allocated to use dydrogesterone for LPS, 1388 to use vaginal progesterone capsules and 898 to use vaginal progesterone gel. Results Dydrogesterone versus progesterone for luteal-phase support: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, Barbosa et al., UOG 2016

There was no relevant difference between oral dydrogesterone and vaginal progesterone for LPS on ongoing pregnancy (RR, 1.04 (95% CI, 0.92–1.18); I 2, 0%; seven RCTs; 3134 women; moderate quality evidence) Synthesis of results: Ongoing pregnancy Dydrogesterone versus progesterone for luteal-phase support: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, Barbosa et al., UOG 2016

3 studies reported patient dissatisfaction with the treatment. Since there was great heterogeneity among the 3 studies (I 2, 83%) the authors did not pool the results of the studies. 2 of the 3 studies reporting on dissatisfaction of treatment identified lower levels of dissatisfaction among women using oral dydrogesterone than among women using vaginal progesterone (oral dydrogesterone vs vaginal progesterone capsules: 2.5% vs 25.6%; oral dydrogesterone vs vaginal progesterone gel: 4.6% vs 18.0%). The third study showed no difference in dissatisfaction rate (oral dydrogesterone vs vaginal progesterone capsules: 8.3% vs 7.0%). Synthesis of results: Dissatisfaction Dydrogesterone versus progesterone for luteal-phase support: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, Barbosa et al., UOG 2016

Overall, there was no evidence of effect of the use of oral dydrogesterone compared with vaginal progesterone on clinical pregnancy (RR, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.93–1.23)) Subgroup analysis showed that oral dydrogesterone is associated with improved clinical pregnancy rate when compared with vaginal progesterone capsules (RR 1.19 (95% CI, 1.04 –1.36)) Synthesis of results: Clinical pregnancy Dydrogesterone versus progesterone for luteal-phase support: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, Barbosa et al., UOG 2016 Synthesis of results: Miscarriage Overall, there was no evidence of effect of the use of oral dydrogesterone compared with vaginal progesterone on miscarriage (RR, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.53–1.10))

Substantial heterogeneity was found for all side effects described by the two studies reporting on this outcome and therefore the results were not pooled. One study of 80 women reported a comparison of the side effects of oral dydrogesterone vs vaginal progesterone and found a greater incidence of vaginal bleeding and nausea in those using oral dydrogesterone. Another study of 821 women found that fewer women using oral dydrogesterone complained of interference with coitus, abdominal pain, perineal irritation, or vaginal discharge. There was no significant difference between the groups in vaginal bleeding, nausea, headache, dizziness, somnolence, breast fullness or bloating. Synthesis of results: Side effects Dydrogesterone versus progesterone for luteal-phase support: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, Barbosa et al., UOG 2016

Discussion and implications for clinical practice Overall, the present meta-analysis observed that oral dydrogesterone was as effective as vaginal progesterone for LPS Oral dydrogesterone can thus be considered a good option for clinical practice, since it provides similar results, with reduced costs and less dissatisfaction, probably leading to a better compliance A better compliance might result in a higher cumulative pregnancy rate These findings are in agreement with those of a recent Cochrane review on LPS, the results of which suggested a significant effect in favoring synthetic progesterone compared with natural progesterone* Dydrogesterone versus progesterone for luteal-phase support: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, Barbosa et al., UOG 2016 *van der Linden M, Buckingham K, Farquhar C, Kremer JA, Metwally M. Luteal phase support for assisted reproduction cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; CD009154

Limitations Live birth is the most important patient-centered outcome of an intervention effect and no included study reported it. Although ongoing pregnancy might be used as a surrogate for live birth, this is a limitation of the meta-analysis. 4/8 included studies were deemed at high risk of bias in at least one domain, thus slightly reducing the quality of the evidence. Finally, the use of a different dose in both intervention and control groups, along with a different duration of LPS could have introduced some heterogeneity in the analysis. Dydrogesterone versus progesterone for luteal-phase support: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, Barbosa et al., UOG 2016

Discussion points Should vaginal progesterone still remain the most common regimen used for luteal-phase support in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques? What are the ideal regimens for progesterone and dydrogesterone for luteal-phase support? Is the available evidence sufficient to use oral dydrogesterone as a substitute for progesterone for luteal-phase support in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques? Dydrogesterone versus progesterone for luteal-phase support: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, Barbosa et al., UOG 2016