A PHP Error was encountered

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

Vaginal progesterone gel is non-inferior to intramuscular progesterone in efficacy with acceptable tolerability for luteal phase support: A prospective, randomized, multicenter study in China. | LitMetric

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.2019.04.012DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

progesterone gel
24
pregnancy rate
20
luteal phase
16
phase support
12
gel group
12
imp group
12
progesterone
10
rate
10
gel
9
intramuscular progesterone
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!