Effectiveness of innovator dydrogesterone versus generic dydrogesterone in early pregnancy: a real-world analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Miscarriage is the most common complication of early pregnancy. Dydrogesterone, a retro-steroid with high oral bioavailability and receptor selectivity, is widely prescribed to support and maintain pregnancy via its novel immunomodulation mechanism. There is a lack of comparative data on the miscarriage rate for pregnant females prescribed innovator, generic, and no dydrogesterone in early pregnancy. This study aimed to evaluate this comparative rate in real-world settings. Methods: A real-world, retrospective, observational study was conducted using anonymized and aggregated medical records from January 2017 to October 2024. Early pregnancy females (18-45 years) who consulted gynecologists were included. These were categorized into three arms: innovator dydrogesterone (Arm 1), generic dydrogesterone (Arm 2), and no dydrogesterone (Arm 3). These arms were balanced by propensity score matching (PSM), and miscarriage rates were compared using the Chi-square test. Results: The incidence of miscarriage was significantly lower in the innovator arm (4.10%) compared to Arm 2 (5.54%, p=0.040) and arm 3 (12.46%, p<0.001). No event of miscarriage was reported among women who switched from generic to innovator dydrogesterone. However, one of the females who shifted from innovator to generic experienced a loss of pregnancy. Conclusions: Innovator dydrogesterone was associated with the lowest rate of miscarriage compared to generic and no dydrogesterone. This suggests its potential clinical benefits in early pregnancy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".