Progesterone vaginal gel or combined medication for luteal-phase support of frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles: single-centre, Chinese, randomized, open-label, pilot study.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Ningning Pan, Xiumei Zhen, Yanhong Fan, Jianhuai Zheng, Yuanyuan Wang, Qiao Liu, Xun Liao, Rui Yang
{"title":"Progesterone vaginal gel or combined medication for luteal-phase support of frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles: single-centre, Chinese, randomized, open-label, pilot study.","authors":"Ningning Pan, Xiumei Zhen, Yanhong Fan, Jianhuai Zheng, Yuanyuan Wang, Qiao Liu, Xun Liao, Rui Yang","doi":"10.1159/000544065","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to explore potential differences in efficacy between vaginal progesterone (VPG) and VPG+oral progesterone (OPG) for luteal-phase support in hormone replacement therapy-frozen embryo transfer (HRT-FET) cycles.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A single-centre, open-label, randomized controlled, phase IV pilot study.</p><p><strong>Participants/materials, setting, methods: </strong>Infertile women aged 20-38 years undergoing HRT-FET cycles were included. Participants were randomized to VPG (n=86) or VPG+OPG (n=86). The primary efficacy endpoint was ongoing pregnancy at 10-12 weeks. Secondary efficacy endpoints included β-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG) positivity, implantation rate, and clinical-pregnancy rate. Safety analyses included adverse events (AE) and vital signs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A higher ongoing pregnancy rate was observed with VPG+OPG (29.1%) versus VPG (18.8%); treatment difference 8.4% (90% confidence interval [CI] -2.2%, 19.0%). Numerical differences also favoured VPG+OPG over VPG for β-hCG positivity (0.9% [90% CI -10.8%, 12.7%]), implantation (10.4% [90% CI 0.5%, 21.3%]), and clinical pregnancy (10.1% [90% CI -0.8%, 21.1%]). Incidences of treatment-emergent AEs were comparable.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>The single-centre study was limited by a relatively small sample size which could have impacted the reported outcomes. Another limitation was the open-label design, which might have increased the risk of bias for subjective endpoints, such as AE reporting.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A higher ongoing pregnancy rate was observed with VPG+OPG vs VPG; however, a statistical conclusion cannot be reached considering the small sample size. These data suggest that a minimum daily progesterone dose, such as VPG 90 mg+OPG 20 mg reported here, or VPG 180 mg reported in other studies, may be required for successful outcomes following HRT-FET cycles.</p>","PeriodicalId":12952,"journal":{"name":"Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation","volume":" ","pages":"1-19"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000544065","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to explore potential differences in efficacy between vaginal progesterone (VPG) and VPG+oral progesterone (OPG) for luteal-phase support in hormone replacement therapy-frozen embryo transfer (HRT-FET) cycles.

Design: A single-centre, open-label, randomized controlled, phase IV pilot study.

Participants/materials, setting, methods: Infertile women aged 20-38 years undergoing HRT-FET cycles were included. Participants were randomized to VPG (n=86) or VPG+OPG (n=86). The primary efficacy endpoint was ongoing pregnancy at 10-12 weeks. Secondary efficacy endpoints included β-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG) positivity, implantation rate, and clinical-pregnancy rate. Safety analyses included adverse events (AE) and vital signs.

Results: A higher ongoing pregnancy rate was observed with VPG+OPG (29.1%) versus VPG (18.8%); treatment difference 8.4% (90% confidence interval [CI] -2.2%, 19.0%). Numerical differences also favoured VPG+OPG over VPG for β-hCG positivity (0.9% [90% CI -10.8%, 12.7%]), implantation (10.4% [90% CI 0.5%, 21.3%]), and clinical pregnancy (10.1% [90% CI -0.8%, 21.1%]). Incidences of treatment-emergent AEs were comparable.

Limitations: The single-centre study was limited by a relatively small sample size which could have impacted the reported outcomes. Another limitation was the open-label design, which might have increased the risk of bias for subjective endpoints, such as AE reporting.

Conclusions: A higher ongoing pregnancy rate was observed with VPG+OPG vs VPG; however, a statistical conclusion cannot be reached considering the small sample size. These data suggest that a minimum daily progesterone dose, such as VPG 90 mg+OPG 20 mg reported here, or VPG 180 mg reported in other studies, may be required for successful outcomes following HRT-FET cycles.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
4.80%
发文量
44
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: This journal covers the most active and promising areas of current research in gynecology and obstetrics. Invited, well-referenced reviews by noted experts keep readers in touch with the general framework and direction of international study. Original papers report selected experimental and clinical investigations in all fields related to gynecology, obstetrics and reproduction. Short communications are published to allow immediate discussion of new data. The international and interdisciplinary character of this periodical provides an avenue to less accessible sources and to worldwide research for investigators and practitioners.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信