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
[31]   Efficacy, safety and tolerability of progesterone vaginal pessaries versus progesterone vaginal gel for luteal phase support after in vitro fertilisation: a randomised controlled trial [J].
Saunders, Helen ;
Khan, Cass ;
D'Hooghe, Thomas ;
Magnusdottir, Thora Bjorg ;
Klingmann, Ingrid ;
Hrafnsdottir, Sigrun .
HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2020, 35 (02) :355-363
[32]   Subcutaneous progesterone versus vaginal progesterone for luteal-phase support in frozen-thawed embryo transfer: A cross-sectional study [J].
Aflatoonian, Abbas ;
Mohammadi, Banafsheh .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE, 2021, 19 (02) :115-120
[33]   Intramuscular progesterone (Gestone) versus vaginal progesterone suppository (Cyclogest) for luteal phase support in cycles of in vitro fertilization–embryo transfer: patient preference and drug efficacy [J].
Amal Yaseen Zaman ;
Serdar Coskun ;
Ahmed Abdullah Alsanie ;
Khalid Arab Awartani .
Fertility Research and Practice, 3 (1)
[34]   Subcutaneous progesterone versus vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization: A retrospective analysis from daily clinical practice [J].
Schutt, Marcel ;
The Duy Nguyen ;
Kalff-Suske, Martha ;
Wagner, Uwe ;
Macharey, Georg ;
Ziller, Volker .
CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE-CERM, 2021, 48 (03) :262-267
[35]   Vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in assisted reproduction [J].
Griesinger, G. ;
Diedrich, K. .
GEBURTSHILFE UND FRAUENHEILKUNDE, 2006, 66 (07) :655-664
[36]   Pilot study evaluating a progesterone vaginal ring for luteal-phase replacement in donor oocyte recipients [J].
Stadtmauer, Laurel ;
Harrison, Diane D. ;
Boyd, Jeannine ;
Bocca, Silvina ;
Oehninger, Sergio .
FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2009, 92 (05) :1600-1605
[37]   Vaginal gel versus intramuscular progesterone for luteal phase supplementation: a prospective randomized trial [J].
Dal Prato, Luca ;
Bianchi, Liana ;
Cattoli, Monica ;
Tarozzi, Nicoletta ;
Flamigni, Carlo ;
Borini, Andrea .
REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE, 2008, 16 (03) :361-367
[38]   Vaginal progesterone gel is non-inferior to intramuscular progesterone in efficacy with acceptable tolerability for luteal phase support: A prospective, randomized, multicenter study in China [J].
Chi, Hongbin ;
Li, Rong ;
Qiao, Jie ;
Chen, Xiujuan ;
Wang, Xingling ;
Hao, Guimin ;
Wu, Qiongfang ;
Cao, Yunxia ;
Cai, Liyi ;
Ye, Hong ;
Zhu, Yimin ;
Wang, Shuyu ;
Zhang, Xuehong ;
Zhang, Cuilian ;
Zhang, Yunshan ;
Lv, Qun ;
Sun, Yingpu ;
Li, Hong ;
Huang, Xuefeng ;
Wang, Fang .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY, 2019, 237 :100-105
[39]   Evaluation of the ideal vaginal Progesterone effectiveness doses for luteal support in embryo thawing cycles after endometrial preparation without using the GnRh analogue [J].
Baldini, G. M. ;
Mastrorocco, A. ;
Hatirnaz, S. ;
Malvasi, A. ;
Cazzato, G. ;
Cascardi, E. ;
Dellino, M. ;
Baldini, D. .
EUROPEAN REVIEW FOR MEDICAL AND PHARMACOLOGICAL SCIENCES, 2023, 27 (05) :2018-2026
[40]   The effect of luteal phase vaginal estradiol supplementation on the success of in vitro fertilization treatment: a prospective randomized study [J].
Engmann, Lawrence ;
DiLuigi, Andrea ;
Schmidt, David ;
Benadiva, Claudio ;
Maier, Donald ;
Nulsen, John .
FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2008, 89 (03) :554-561