Natural cycle versus hormone replacement therapy as endometrial preparation in ovulatory women undergoing frozen-thawed embryo transfer: The compete open-label randomized controlled trial.
Xitong Liu, Wentao Li, Wen Wen, Ting Wang, Tao Wang, Ting Sun, Na Zhang, Dan Pan, Jinlin Xie, Xiaojuan Liu, He Cai, Xiaofang Li, Zan Shi, Rui Wang, Na Lu, Haiyan Bai, Rong Pan, Li Tian, Bin Meng, Xin Mu, Hongran Jia, Hanying Zhou, Xu Cao, Tianxing Liu, Pengfei Qu, Danmeng Liu, Ben W Mol, Juanzi Shi
{"title":"Natural cycle versus hormone replacement therapy as endometrial preparation in ovulatory women undergoing frozen-thawed embryo transfer: The compete open-label randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Xitong Liu, Wentao Li, Wen Wen, Ting Wang, Tao Wang, Ting Sun, Na Zhang, Dan Pan, Jinlin Xie, Xiaojuan Liu, He Cai, Xiaofang Li, Zan Shi, Rui Wang, Na Lu, Haiyan Bai, Rong Pan, Li Tian, Bin Meng, Xin Mu, Hongran Jia, Hanying Zhou, Xu Cao, Tianxing Liu, Pengfei Qu, Danmeng Liu, Ben W Mol, Juanzi Shi","doi":"10.1371/journal.pmed.1004630","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Different endometrial preparation protocols are used prior to frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET). Optimization of endometrial preparation protocols is mandatory to improve live birth rate and obstetric and perinatal outcomes. In the Comparison of Endometrial Preparation Protocols for Frozen Embryo Transfer (COMPETE) trial, our primary objective is to evaluate whether natural cycles (NCs) lead to a higher live birth rate after the first FET cycle compared to hormone replacement therapy (HRT) cycles in women with a regular ovulatory cycle.</p><p><strong>Methods and findings: </strong>We performed a single-center, parallel, open-label randomized controlled trial between December 2020 and December 2022 in a single assisted reproduction center in Xi'an, China. Women with a regular menstrual cycle undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) scheduled for FET were randomly assigned (1:1) to endometrial preparation in the NC or with HRT, using a web-based electronic data capture system. The primary outcome was live birth rate after the initial FET. The analysis was conducted based on the intention-to-treat principle. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in all randomly assigned women were reported in this study. We randomly assigned 902 women to receive either NC (n = 448) or HRT (n = 454). In the NC group, 101 women received HRT because of no ovulation, while in the HRT group, 29 women received NC because of spontaneous ovulation. The number of live births was 242 (54.0%) in the NC group versus 195 (43.0%) in the HRT group (absolute difference, 11.1 percentage points, 95% CI 4.6 to 17.5; risk ratio (RR) 1.26, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.44). Miscarriage rates (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.89) and the antepartum hemorrhage rates (RR 0.63, 95%CI 0.42 to 0.93) were lower in the NC group, with other obstetric and perinatal outcomes not significantly different.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In women with a regular menstrual cycle undergoing FET, a strategy starting with NC endometrial preparation results in higher live birth rates than endometrial preparation with HRT. However, the permitted cross-over between arms limits certainty in directly assessing NC versus HRT efficacy.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2000040640.</p>","PeriodicalId":49008,"journal":{"name":"PLoS Medicine","volume":"22 6","pages":"e1004630"},"PeriodicalIF":15.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12193059/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004630","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Different endometrial preparation protocols are used prior to frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET). Optimization of endometrial preparation protocols is mandatory to improve live birth rate and obstetric and perinatal outcomes. In the Comparison of Endometrial Preparation Protocols for Frozen Embryo Transfer (COMPETE) trial, our primary objective is to evaluate whether natural cycles (NCs) lead to a higher live birth rate after the first FET cycle compared to hormone replacement therapy (HRT) cycles in women with a regular ovulatory cycle.
Methods and findings: We performed a single-center, parallel, open-label randomized controlled trial between December 2020 and December 2022 in a single assisted reproduction center in Xi'an, China. Women with a regular menstrual cycle undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) scheduled for FET were randomly assigned (1:1) to endometrial preparation in the NC or with HRT, using a web-based electronic data capture system. The primary outcome was live birth rate after the initial FET. The analysis was conducted based on the intention-to-treat principle. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in all randomly assigned women were reported in this study. We randomly assigned 902 women to receive either NC (n = 448) or HRT (n = 454). In the NC group, 101 women received HRT because of no ovulation, while in the HRT group, 29 women received NC because of spontaneous ovulation. The number of live births was 242 (54.0%) in the NC group versus 195 (43.0%) in the HRT group (absolute difference, 11.1 percentage points, 95% CI 4.6 to 17.5; risk ratio (RR) 1.26, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.44). Miscarriage rates (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.89) and the antepartum hemorrhage rates (RR 0.63, 95%CI 0.42 to 0.93) were lower in the NC group, with other obstetric and perinatal outcomes not significantly different.
Conclusions: In women with a regular menstrual cycle undergoing FET, a strategy starting with NC endometrial preparation results in higher live birth rates than endometrial preparation with HRT. However, the permitted cross-over between arms limits certainty in directly assessing NC versus HRT efficacy.
Trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2000040640.
期刊介绍：
PLOS Medicine is a prominent platform for discussing and researching global health challenges. The journal covers a wide range of topics, including biomedical, environmental, social, and political factors affecting health. It prioritizes articles that contribute to clinical practice, health policy, or a better understanding of pathophysiology, ultimately aiming to improve health outcomes across different settings.
The journal is unwavering in its commitment to uphold the highest ethical standards in medical publishing. This includes actively managing and disclosing any conflicts of interest related to reporting, reviewing, and publishing. PLOS Medicine promotes transparency in the entire review and publication process. The journal also encourages data sharing and encourages the reuse of published work. Additionally, authors retain copyright for their work, and the publication is made accessible through Open Access with no restrictions on availability and dissemination.
PLOS Medicine takes measures to avoid conflicts of interest associated with advertising drugs and medical devices or engaging in the exclusive sale of reprints.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
