PLoS medicine · 2025
Natural cycle versus hormone replacement therapy as endometrial preparation in ovulatory women undergoing frozen-thawed embryo transfer: The COMPETE open-label randomized controlled trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Liu Xitong, Li Wentao, Wen Wen, Wang Ting, Wang Tao, Sun Ting, Zhang Na, Pan Dan, Xie Jinlin, Liu Xiaojuan, Cai He, Li Xiaofang, Shi Zan, Wang Rui, Lu Na, Bai Haiyan, Pan Rong, Tian Li, Meng Bin, Mu Xin, Jia Hongran, Zhou Hanying, Cao Xu, Liu Tianxing, Qu Pengfei, Liu Danmeng, Mol Ben W, Shi Juanzi
Аннотация
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.
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.