Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Objectives: Research suggests the efficacy of progesterone for luteal phase support in assisted reproduction cycles using gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues. Our study objective was to compare the efficacy of two available preparations of progesterone, vaginal gel and intramuscular injection, for luteal phase support in assisted reproduction cycles.
Study Design: This study included data gathered from 18 reproductive centers in China. Subjects were randomly allocated to receive progesterone gel or intramuscular progesterone (IMP). The progesterone gel group received micronized progesterone in gel (8%, 90 mg) once daily; the IMP group received IMP (progesterone oil) once daily. The ongoing pregnancy rate was calculated (number of women with a viable pregnancy at 12 weeks divided by the number of women who had undergone an oocyte pickup cycle).
Results: A total of 1313 patients were enrolled in the study, 1248 of whom began treatment. The intention-to-treat set included 527 and 531 patients in the gel and IMP groups, respectively. The ongoing pregnancy rate in the progesterone gel group was non-inferior to that in the IMP group (48.4% [95% confidence interval (CI): 44.0, 52.8] vs. 46.3% [95% CI: 42.0, 50.7]); the between-group rate difference was 2.1% (-4.0, 8.1). There was no difference between the gel group and IMP group on most secondary endpoints, including implantation rate, biochemical pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, multiple pregnancy rate, early abortion rate, and vaginal bleeding rate, but there was a between-group difference in luteal phase bleeding rate. The safety analysis showed no difference in the incidence of total adverse events.
Conclusions: Progesterone gel showed good efficacy and safety outcomes and therefore provides an alternative method of luteal support in Chinese in vitro fertilization patients.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.04.012 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!