首页> 外文期刊>Fertility and Sterility: Official Journal of the American Fertility Society, Pacific Coast Fertility Society, and the Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society >Subcutaneous progesterone versus vaginal progesterone gel for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization: A noninferiority randomized controlled study
【24h】

Subcutaneous progesterone versus vaginal progesterone gel for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization: A noninferiority randomized controlled study

机译:皮下孕酮与阴道孕酮凝胶在体外受精中支持黄体期:一项非劣效性随机对照研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Objective To compare the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of subcutaneous progesterone (Prolutex, 25 mg; IBSA Institut Biochimique SA) with vaginal progesterone gel (Crinone, 8%; Merck Serono) for luteal phase support (LPS) in assisted reproduction technologies (ART) patients. Design Prospective, open-label, randomized, controlled, parallel-group, multicenter, two-arm, noninferiority study. Setting Thirteen European fertility clinics. Patient(s) A total of 683 ART patients randomized to two groups: Prolutex, 25 mg subcutaneously daily (n = 339); and Crinone, 90 mg 8% gel daily (n = 344). Intervention(s) In vitro fertilization and embryo transfer were performed according to site-specific protocols. On the day of oocyte retrieval, Prolutex or Crinone gel was begun for LPS and continued for up to 10 weeks. Main Outcome Measure(s) Ongoing pregnancy rate. Result(s) The primary end point, ongoing pregnancy rates at 10 weeks of treatment were 27.4% and 30.5% in the Prolutex and Crinone groups, respectively (intention to treat [ITT]). The nonsignificant difference between the groups was -3.09% (95% confidence interval [CI] -9.91-3.73), indicating noninferiority of Prolutex to Crinone. Delivery and live birth rates resulted to be equivalent between the two treatments (26.8% vs. 29.9% in the Prolutex and Crinone groups, respectively [ITT]; difference -3.10 [95% CI -9.87-3.68]). No statistically significant differences were reported for any of the other secondary efficacy endpoints, including comfort of usage and overall satisfaction. Conclusion(s) Implantation rate, pregnancy rate, live birth rate, and early miscarriage rate for Prolutex were similar to those for Crinone. The adverse event profiles were similar and Prolutex was safe and well tolerated. Clinical Trial Registration Number NCT00827983.
机译:目的比较皮下孕酮(Prolutex,25 mg; IBSA Institut Biochimique SA)与阴道孕酮凝胶(Crinone,8%; Merck Serono)在辅助生殖技术(ART)中用于黄体期支持(LPS)的安全性,有效性和耐受性) 耐心。设计前瞻性,开放标签,随机,对照,平行组,多中心,两臂,非劣效性研究。设立十三家欧洲生育诊所。患者总计683名ART患者随机分为两组:Prolutex,每天皮下注射25 mg(n = 339);和Crinone,每天90 mg,8%凝胶(n = 344)。干预措施根据特定部位的方案进行体外受精和胚胎移植。在取卵的当天,开始对LPS使用Prolutex或Crinone凝胶,并持续长达10周。主要结果指标持续妊娠率。结果在Prolutex和Crinone组中,治疗10周的主要终点,持续妊娠率分别为27.4%和30.5%(意图治疗[ITT])。两组之间的无显着性差异为-3.09%(95%置信区间[CI] -9.91-3.73),表明Prolutex对Crinone的劣势。两种治疗方法的分娩率和活产率相同(Prolutex和Crinone组分别为26.8%和29.9%[ITT];差异为-3.10 [95%CI -9.87-3.68])。没有任何其他次要功效终点的统计学上显着差异报告,包括使用舒适性和总体满意度。结论Prolutex的植入率,妊娠率,活产率和早期流产率与Crinone相似。不良事件情况相似,Prolutex安全且耐受良好。临床试验注册号NCT00827983。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号