Literature DB >> 24140033

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

Gillian Lockwood1, Georg Griesinger2, Barbara Cometti3.   

Abstract

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.
Copyright © 2014 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Luteal phase support; intracytoplasmic sperm injection; in vitro fertilization; pregnancy; progesterone

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24140033     DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.09.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fertil Steril        ISSN: 0015-0282            Impact factor:   7.329


  20 in total

1.  Has ART Finally Got a Patient-Friendly Progesterone?

Authors:  Gautam N Allahbadia
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol India       Date:  2015-10

Review 2.  Progesterone and the luteal phase: a requisite to reproduction.

Authors:  Tolga B Mesen; Steven L Young
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am       Date:  2015-01-05       Impact factor: 2.844

Review 3.  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

Review 4.  Ectopic pregnancy secondary to in vitro fertilisation-embryo transfer: pathogenic mechanisms and management strategies.

Authors:  Bassem Refaat; Elizabeth Dalton; William L Ledger
Journal:  Reprod Biol Endocrinol       Date:  2015-04-12       Impact factor: 5.211

5.  Phase III trial of 8% vaginal progesterone gel for luteal phase support in Japanese women undergoing in vitro fertilization and fresh embryo transfer cycles.

Authors:  Shoji Kokeguchi; Naoki Hayashi; Daniela Rogoff; Shin Shimizu; Osamu Ishihara
Journal:  Reprod Med Biol       Date:  2016-12-01

6.  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.

Authors:  Herman Tournaye; Gennady T Sukhikh; Elke Kahler; Georg Griesinger
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2017-05-01       Impact factor: 6.918

7.  A randomized, controlled trial comparing the efficacy and safety of aqueous subcutaneous progesterone with vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support of in vitro fertilization.

Authors:  Valerie L Baker; Christopher A Jones; Kevin Doody; Russell Foulk; Bill Yee; G David Adamson; Barbara Cometti; Gary DeVane; Gary Hubert; Silvia Trevisan; Fred Hoehler; Clarence Jones; Michael Soules
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2014-08-06       Impact factor: 6.918

Review 8.  Efficacy and Safety Profile of Diclofenac/Cyclodextrin and Progesterone/Cyclodextrin Formulations: A Review of the Literature Data.

Authors:  Cristina Scavone; Angela Colomba Bonagura; Sonia Fiorentino; Daniela Cimmaruta; Rosina Cenami; Marco Torella; Tiziano Fossati; Francesco Rossi
Journal:  Drugs R D       Date:  2016-06

9.  Subcutaneous Progesterone Is Effective and Safe for Luteal Phase Support in IVF: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of the Phase III Trials.

Authors:  Jakob Doblinger; Barbara Cometti; Silvia Trevisan; Georg Griesinger
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-18       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  Progesterone administration for luteal phase deficiency in human reproduction: an old or new issue?

Authors:  Stefano Palomba; Susanna Santagni; Giovanni Battista La Sala
Journal:  J Ovarian Res       Date:  2015-11-19       Impact factor: 4.234

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.