Progesterone vaginal ring versus vaginal gel for luteal support with in vitro fertilization: a randomized comparative study

被引:22
作者
Stadtmauer, Laurel [1 ]
Silverberg, Kaylen M. [2 ]
Ginsburg, Elizabeth S. [3 ]
Weiss, Herman [4 ]
Howard, Brandon [5 ]
机构
[1] Jones Inst Reprod Med, Norfolk, VA 23507 USA
[2] Texas Fertil Ctr, Austin, TX USA
[3] Brigham & Womens Hosp, Ctr Reprod Med, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[4] Teva Womens Hlth, Petah Tiqwa, Israel
[5] Teva Womens Hlth, Frazer, PA USA
关键词
Progesterone; luteal phase support; in vitro fertilization; progesterone supplementation; assisted reproductive technology; vaginal ring; pregnancy; ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY; PHASE SUPPORT; INTRAMUSCULAR PROGESTERONE; CRINONE; 8-PERCENT; EMBRYO TRANSFER; IVF; METAANALYSIS; EFFICACY; OBESITY; OOCYTE;
D O I
10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.12.052
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of luteal phase support in IVF with a progesterone (P) vaginal ring or gel (VR or VG). Design: Prospective, randomized, single-blind, multicenter, phase III clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00615251). Setting: Nineteen private and three academic high-volume U.S. IVF centers. Patient(s): One thousand two hundred ninety-seven infertile patients were randomized to a weekly P VR (n = 646) or a daily P 8% VG (n = 651). Intervention(s): IVF was performed per site-specific protocols. The day after egg retrieval, patients were randomized and began VR or VG therapy, which continued for up to 10 weeks' gestation. Main Outcome Measure(s): Clinical pregnancy rates at 8 and 12 weeks of pregnancy; rates of biochemical pregnancy, live birth, spontaneous abortion, ectopic pregnancy, and cycle cancellation; and safety and tolerability were secondary measures. Result(s): Clinical pregnancy rates at 8 and 12 weeks were high and comparable between groups: 48.0% for VR and 47.2% for VG at week 8 and 46.4% (VR) and 45.2% (VG) at week 12. Live-birth rates were 45% (VR) and 43% (VG). Adverse event profiles were similar between groups. Conclusion(s): The weekly P VR provided similar pregnancy rates to the daily VG, with no major differences in safety. ((c) 2013 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)
引用
收藏
页码:1543 / 1549
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Subcutaneous progesterone versus vaginal progesterone gel for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization: a noninferiority randomized controlled study
    Lockwood, Gillian
    Griesinger, Georg
    Cometti, Barbara
    FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2014, 101 (01) : 112 - +
  • [2] Patient experience in a randomized trial of a weekly progesterone vaginal ring versus a daily progesterone gel for luteal support after in vitro fertilization
    Ginsburg, Elizabeth S.
    Jellerette-Nolan, Teru
    Daftary, Gaurang
    Du, Yunling
    Silverberg, Kaylen M.
    FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2018, 110 (06) : 1101 - +
  • [3] A prospective randomized multicentre study comparing vaginal progesterone gel and vaginal micronized progesterone tablets for luteal support after in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection
    Bergh, Christina
    Lindenberg, Svend
    HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2012, 27 (12) : 3467 - 3473
  • [4] Oral micronized progesterone combined with vaginal progesterone gel for luteal support
    Tomic, Vlatka
    Tomic, Jozo
    Klaic, Djurdja Zigmundovac
    GYNECOLOGICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY, 2011, 27 (12) : 1010 - 1013
  • [5] The progesterone vaginal ring as a luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization
    Vargas-Tominaga, Luis
    Medina, Andrea
    Vargas, Andrea
    Gomez, Maritza
    Huillca, Flor
    Vargas, Patricia
    REVISTA PERUANA DE GINECOLOGIA Y OBSTETRICIA, 2022, 68 (04):
  • [6] Use of Crinone* vaginal progesterone gel for luteal support in in vitro fertilization cycles
    Chantilis, SJ
    Zeitoun, KM
    Patel, SI
    Johns, DA
    Madziar, VA
    McIntire, DD
    FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 1999, 72 (05) : 823 - 829
  • [7] Oral dydrogesterone versus vaginal progesterone gel in the luteal phase support: randomized controlled trial
    Tomic, Vlatka
    Tomic, Jozo
    Klaic, Djurdja Zigmundovac
    Kasum, Miro
    Kuna, Krunoslav
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY, 2015, 186 : 49 - 53
  • [8] Clinical use of aqueous subcutaneous progesterone compared with vaginal progesterone as luteal support in in vitro fertilization: A randomized controlled study in Taiwan
    Kao, Tzu-Ching
    Tu, Yi-An
    Yang, Po -Kai
    Huang, Chu -Chun
    Yang, Jehn-Hsiahn
    Chen, Shee-Uan
    Chao, Kuang-Han
    TAIWANESE JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2022, 61 (05): : 863 - 867
  • [9] Progesterone for Luteal Phase Support in In Vitro Fertilization: Comparison of Vaginal and Rectal Pessaries to Vaginal Capsules: A Randomized Controlled Study
    Khrouf, Mohamed
    Slimani, Soufiene
    Khrouf, Myriam Razgallah
    Braham, Marouen
    Bouyahia, Maha
    Berjeb, Khadija Kacem
    Chaabane, Hanene Elloumi
    Merdassi, Ghaya
    Kaffel, Aida Zahaf
    Zhioua, Amel
    Zhioua, Fethi
    CLINICAL MEDICINE INSIGHTS-WOMENS HEALTH, 2016, 9 : 43 - 47
  • [10] Matched-samples comparison of intramuscular versus vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer
    Khan, Naveed
    Richter, Kevin S.
    Newsome, Tasha L.
    Blake, Emily J.
    Yankov, Vladimir L.
    FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2009, 91 (06) : 2445 - 2450