Comparison of the efficacy and safety of two formulations of micronized progesterone (ellios™and utrogestan™) used as luteal phase support after in vitro fertilization
article
OA: closed
CC0
⤵ 1 in-corpus citation
Abstract
ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and the tolerability of two different vaginal formulations of micronized progesterone, Ellios and Utrogestan, used for luteal phase support after an in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle.DesignCohort study.SettingFertility center in a university hospital. PATIENT(S(: One hundred twenty-three women who underwent IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) stimulated cycles from October 1998 to March 2000, who had at least six follicles of > or =14 mm on the day of hCG administration.Intervention(s)Patients received Ellios pessaries (2 times 200-mg pessary/day) or Utrogestan capsules (2 x 100-mg capsules, two times a day). Progesterone was administered from the day of oocyte pickup (day 0) until menses or up to 10 weeks in pregnant patients.Main outcome measure(s)Progesterone levels, pregnancy rate, and tolerability tested by patient questionnaire.Result(s)The progesterone levels on days 0, 9, 16 were not statistically different between the two formulations. The pregnancy rate were similar in groups 1 and 2 (25.5% vs. 18.6%), whereas tolerance was significantly better in group 1 versus group 2 (vaginal discharge: 43% vs. 82%).Conclusion(s)The efficacy of the two formulations of progesterone is comparable, although the patient tolerance for Ellios is better.
My notes (saved in your browser only)
Citation neighborhood (sparse)
Too few in-corpus citations on either side for a chart; here are the lists.
Cited by (1)
References (27)
- doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137144 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/0002-9378(88)90448-6 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(16)45563-9 via openalex
- W1422926146 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(16)56758-2 via openalex
- doi:10.1093/humupd/5.4.365 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/0378-5122(93)90064-o via openalex
- doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(16)56935-0 via openalex
- doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137138 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(99)00364-7 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(16)46869-x via openalex
- doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137611 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/s0029-7844(97)00270-6 via openalex
- doi:10.1093/humrep/15.6.1284 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(16)56758-2 via crossref
- doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(16)46869-x via crossref
- doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(16)45563-9 via crossref
- doi:10.1016/0378-5122(93)90064-o via crossref
- doi:10.1016/0002-9378(88)90448-6 via crossref
- doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(99)00364-7 via crossref
- doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137611 via crossref
- doi:10.1093/humrep/15.6.1284 via crossref
- doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137144 via crossref
- doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137138 via crossref
- doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(16)56935-0 via crossref
- doi:10.1016/s0029-7844(97)00270-6 via crossref
- doi:10.1093/humupd/5.4.365 via crossref
Cited by (1)
Source provenance
- crossref
- last seen: 2026-05-16T01:00:09.754238+00:00
- openalex
- last seen: 2026-05-14T06:05:00.350814+00:00
License: CC0
· commercial use OK