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
[21]   Luteal support after in-vitro fertilization: Crinone 8%, a sustained release vaginal progesterone gel, versus Utrogestan, an oral micronized progesterone [J].
Pouly, JL ;
Bassil, S ;
Frydman, R ;
Hedon, B ;
Nicollet, B ;
Prada, Y ;
Antoine, JM ;
Zambrano, R ;
Donnez, J .
HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 1996, 11 (10) :2085-2089
[22]   Single and multidose pharmacokinetic study of a vaginal micronized progesterone insert (Endometrin) compared with vaginal gel in healthy reproductive-aged female subjects [J].
Blake, Emily J. ;
Norris, Paul M. ;
Dorfman, Sally Faith ;
Longstreth, James ;
Yankov, Vladimir I. .
FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2010, 94 (04) :1296-1301
[23]   A Comparison of Oral Dydrogesterone with Vaginal Progesterone for Luteal-Phase Support in In vitro Fertilization: A Randomized Controlled Trial [J].
Naghshineh, Elham ;
Tehrani, Hatav Ghasemi ;
Sharifian, Fatemeh ;
Haghighat, Somayeh .
ADVANCED BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH, 2023, 12 (01)
[24]   Comparison of oral dydrogestrone with progesterone gel and micronized progesterone for luteal support in 1,373 women undergoing in vitro fertilization: a randomized clinical study [J].
Ganesh, Ashalatha ;
Chakravorty, Nishant ;
Mukherjee, Rashmi ;
Goswami, Sourendrakanta ;
Chaudhury, Koel ;
Chakravarty, Baidyanath .
FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2011, 95 (06) :1961-1965
[25]   Comparing the outcomes of in-vitro fertilization in patients receiving vaginal, subcutaneous, and intramuscular progesterone for luteal phase support: a three-armed randomized controlled trial [J].
Tehraninejad, Ensieh Shahrokh ;
Alizadeh, Sanaz ;
Nekoo, Elham Azimi ;
Zargarzadeh, Nikan ;
Shariat, Mamak ;
Haghollahi, Fedyeh ;
Tarafdari, Azadeh ;
Parsaei, Mohammadamin .
BMC WOMENS HEALTH, 2024, 24 (01)
[26]   A Phase III randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy, safety and tolerability of oral dydrogesterone versus micronized vaginal progesterone for luteal support in in vitro fertilization [J].
Tournaye, Herman ;
Sukhikh, Gennady T. ;
Kahler, Elke ;
Griesinger, Georg .
HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2017, 32 (05) :1019-1027
[27]   Subcutaneous progesterone (Prolutex) versus vaginal (Cyclogest) for luteal phase support in IVF/ICSI cycles: a randomized controlled clinical trial [J].
Moini, Ashraf ;
Arabipoor, Arezoo ;
Zolfaghari, Zahra ;
Sadeghi, Maria ;
Ramezanali, Fariba .
MIDDLE EAST FERTILITY SOCIETY JOURNAL, 2022, 27 (01)
[28]   Systematic review of the clinical efficacy of vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in assisted reproductive technology cycles [J].
Child, Tim ;
Leonard, Saoirse A. ;
Evans, Jennifer S. ;
Lass, Amir .
REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE, 2018, 36 (06) :630-645
[29]   Intramuscular progesterone versus 8% Crinone vaginal gel for luteal phase support for day 3 cryopreserved embryo transfer [J].
Kaser, Daniel J. ;
Ginsburg, Elizabeth S. ;
Missmer, Stacey A. ;
Correia, Katharine F. ;
Racowsky, Catherine .
FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2012, 98 (06) :1464-1469
[30]   Dydrogesterone versus micronized vaginal progesterone as luteal phase support after fresh embryo transfer in IVF [J].
Tataru, C. ;
Dessapt, A. -l. ;
Pietin-Vialle, C. ;
Pasquier, M. ;
Bry-Gauillard, H. ;
Massin, N. .
GYNECOLOGIE OBSTETRIQUE FERTILITE & SENOLOGIE, 2022, 50 (06) :455-461