Literature DB >> 23539885

Clinical comparison of ovarian stimulation and luteal support agents in patients undergoing GnRH antagonist IVF cycles.

Charles E Miller1, Edward Zbella, Bobby W Webster, Kevin J Doody, Mark R Bush, Michael G Collins.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To explore the comparative efficacy, safety, and tolerability of agents used for ovarian stimulation and luteal support when applied in a population of women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) using a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol. STUDY
DESIGN: A phase 4, multicenter, randomized, open-label, exploratory clinical trial was performed at 7 assisted reproductive technology centers in the United States. Subjects included 173 women aged 18-42 years with a documented history of infertility who were undergoing IVF. Subjects were randomized to treatment with highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin (HP-hMG) or recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone (rhFSH) for ovarian stimulation and progesterone vaginal inserts (PVIs) or intramuscular injection of progesterone in oil (PIO) for luteal support. Protocols for IVF followed the standard practices of participating centers within the parameters of the study.
RESULTS: Biochemical, clinical, and ongoing pregnancy rates were the main outcome measures. Ongoing pregnancy rates for individual treatment groups ranged from 44.0-46.9%. No statistically significant differences were observed in pregnancy outcomes for the comparisons of HP-hMG vs. rhFSH or PVI vs. PIO. All study medications were generally safe and well tolerated.
CONCLUSION: In this study HP-hMG and rhFSH were equally effective for ovarian stimulation during GnRH antagonist IVF cycles. Both PVI and PIO are viable options for luteal support.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23539885

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Reprod Med        ISSN: 0024-7758            Impact factor:   0.142


  5 in total

Review 1.  Timing luteal support in assisted reproductive technology: a systematic review.

Authors:  Matthew T Connell; Jennifer M Szatkowski; Nancy Terry; Alan H DeCherney; Anthony M Propst; Micah J Hill
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2015-01-29       Impact factor: 7.329

Review 2.  Luteal phase support for assisted reproduction cycles.

Authors:  Michelle van der Linden; Karen Buckingham; Cindy Farquhar; Jan A M Kremer; Mostafa Metwally
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-07-07

3.  A questionnaire-based audit to assess overall experience and convenience among patients using vaginal progesterone tablets (Lutigest®) for luteal phase support during IVF treatment.

Authors:  Polly Heine; Laura Sellar; Sue Whitten; Priti Bajaj
Journal:  Patient Relat Outcome Meas       Date:  2017-12-08

4.  Smoking Decreases Endometrial Thickness in IVF/ICSI Patients.

Authors:  Anna Heger; Michael Sator; Katharina Walch; Detlef Pietrowski
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2018-01-22       Impact factor: 2.915

5.  Luteal phase support for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection fresh cycles: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hanglin Wu; Songying Zhang; Xiaona Lin; Shasha Wang; Ping Zhou
Journal:  Reprod Biol Endocrinol       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 5.211

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.