Cargando…

Natural vs. programmed cycles for frozen embryo transfer: study protocol for an investigator-initiated, randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials of assisted reproductive technology (ART) have been designed for outcomes of clinical pregnancy or live birth and have not been powered for obstetric outcomes such as preeclampsia, critical for maternal and fetal health. ART increasingly involves frozen embryo transfer...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Baksh, Sheriza, Casper, Anne, Christianson, Mindy S., Devine, Kate, Doody, Kevin J., Ehrhardt, Stephan, Hansen, Karl R., Lathi, Ruth B., Timbo, Fatmata, Usadi, Rebecca, Vitek, Wendy, Shade, David M., Segars, James, Baker, Valerie L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8477459/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34579768
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05637-3
_version_ 1784575845926436864
author Baksh, Sheriza
Casper, Anne
Christianson, Mindy S.
Devine, Kate
Doody, Kevin J.
Ehrhardt, Stephan
Hansen, Karl R.
Lathi, Ruth B.
Timbo, Fatmata
Usadi, Rebecca
Vitek, Wendy
Shade, David M.
Segars, James
Baker, Valerie L.
author_facet Baksh, Sheriza
Casper, Anne
Christianson, Mindy S.
Devine, Kate
Doody, Kevin J.
Ehrhardt, Stephan
Hansen, Karl R.
Lathi, Ruth B.
Timbo, Fatmata
Usadi, Rebecca
Vitek, Wendy
Shade, David M.
Segars, James
Baker, Valerie L.
author_sort Baksh, Sheriza
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Randomized trials of assisted reproductive technology (ART) have been designed for outcomes of clinical pregnancy or live birth and have not been powered for obstetric outcomes such as preeclampsia, critical for maternal and fetal health. ART increasingly involves frozen embryo transfer (FET). Although there are advantages of FET, multiple studies have shown that risk of preeclampsia is increased with FET compared with fresh embryo transfer, and the reason for this difference is not clear. NatPro will compare the proportion of preeclampsia between two commonly used protocols for FET,modified natural and programmed cycle. METHODS: In this two-arm, parallel-group, multi-center randomized trial, NatPro will randomize 788 women to either modified natural or programmed FET and follow them for up to three FET cycles. Primary outcome will be the proportion of preeclampsia in women with a viable pregnancy assigned to a modified natural cycle FET (corpus luteum present) protocol compared to the proportion of preeclampsia in pregnant women assigned to a programmed FET (corpus luteum absent) protocol. Secondary outcomes will compare the proportion of live births and the proportion of preeclampsia with severe features between the protocols. CONCLUSION: This study has a potential significant impact on millions of women who pursue ART to build their families. NatPro is designed to provide clinically relevant guidance to inform patients and clinicians regarding maternal risk with programmed and modified natural cycle FET protocols. This study will also provide accurate point estimates regarding the likelihood of live birth with programmed and modified natural cycle FET. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT04551807. Registered on September 16, 2020 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05637-3.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8477459
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84774592021-09-28 Natural vs. programmed cycles for frozen embryo transfer: study protocol for an investigator-initiated, randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial Baksh, Sheriza Casper, Anne Christianson, Mindy S. Devine, Kate Doody, Kevin J. Ehrhardt, Stephan Hansen, Karl R. Lathi, Ruth B. Timbo, Fatmata Usadi, Rebecca Vitek, Wendy Shade, David M. Segars, James Baker, Valerie L. Trials Study Protocol BACKGROUND: Randomized trials of assisted reproductive technology (ART) have been designed for outcomes of clinical pregnancy or live birth and have not been powered for obstetric outcomes such as preeclampsia, critical for maternal and fetal health. ART increasingly involves frozen embryo transfer (FET). Although there are advantages of FET, multiple studies have shown that risk of preeclampsia is increased with FET compared with fresh embryo transfer, and the reason for this difference is not clear. NatPro will compare the proportion of preeclampsia between two commonly used protocols for FET,modified natural and programmed cycle. METHODS: In this two-arm, parallel-group, multi-center randomized trial, NatPro will randomize 788 women to either modified natural or programmed FET and follow them for up to three FET cycles. Primary outcome will be the proportion of preeclampsia in women with a viable pregnancy assigned to a modified natural cycle FET (corpus luteum present) protocol compared to the proportion of preeclampsia in pregnant women assigned to a programmed FET (corpus luteum absent) protocol. Secondary outcomes will compare the proportion of live births and the proportion of preeclampsia with severe features between the protocols. CONCLUSION: This study has a potential significant impact on millions of women who pursue ART to build their families. NatPro is designed to provide clinically relevant guidance to inform patients and clinicians regarding maternal risk with programmed and modified natural cycle FET protocols. This study will also provide accurate point estimates regarding the likelihood of live birth with programmed and modified natural cycle FET. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT04551807. Registered on September 16, 2020 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05637-3. BioMed Central 2021-09-27 /pmc/articles/PMC8477459/ /pubmed/34579768 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05637-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Study Protocol
Baksh, Sheriza
Casper, Anne
Christianson, Mindy S.
Devine, Kate
Doody, Kevin J.
Ehrhardt, Stephan
Hansen, Karl R.
Lathi, Ruth B.
Timbo, Fatmata
Usadi, Rebecca
Vitek, Wendy
Shade, David M.
Segars, James
Baker, Valerie L.
Natural vs. programmed cycles for frozen embryo transfer: study protocol for an investigator-initiated, randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial
title Natural vs. programmed cycles for frozen embryo transfer: study protocol for an investigator-initiated, randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial
title_full Natural vs. programmed cycles for frozen embryo transfer: study protocol for an investigator-initiated, randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial
title_fullStr Natural vs. programmed cycles for frozen embryo transfer: study protocol for an investigator-initiated, randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial
title_full_unstemmed Natural vs. programmed cycles for frozen embryo transfer: study protocol for an investigator-initiated, randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial
title_short Natural vs. programmed cycles for frozen embryo transfer: study protocol for an investigator-initiated, randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial
title_sort natural vs. programmed cycles for frozen embryo transfer: study protocol for an investigator-initiated, randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial
topic Study Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8477459/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34579768
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05637-3
work_keys_str_mv AT bakshsheriza naturalvsprogrammedcyclesforfrozenembryotransferstudyprotocolforaninvestigatorinitiatedrandomizedcontrolledmulticenterclinicaltrial
AT casperanne naturalvsprogrammedcyclesforfrozenembryotransferstudyprotocolforaninvestigatorinitiatedrandomizedcontrolledmulticenterclinicaltrial
AT christiansonmindys naturalvsprogrammedcyclesforfrozenembryotransferstudyprotocolforaninvestigatorinitiatedrandomizedcontrolledmulticenterclinicaltrial
AT devinekate naturalvsprogrammedcyclesforfrozenembryotransferstudyprotocolforaninvestigatorinitiatedrandomizedcontrolledmulticenterclinicaltrial
AT doodykevinj naturalvsprogrammedcyclesforfrozenembryotransferstudyprotocolforaninvestigatorinitiatedrandomizedcontrolledmulticenterclinicaltrial
AT ehrhardtstephan naturalvsprogrammedcyclesforfrozenembryotransferstudyprotocolforaninvestigatorinitiatedrandomizedcontrolledmulticenterclinicaltrial
AT hansenkarlr naturalvsprogrammedcyclesforfrozenembryotransferstudyprotocolforaninvestigatorinitiatedrandomizedcontrolledmulticenterclinicaltrial
AT lathiruthb naturalvsprogrammedcyclesforfrozenembryotransferstudyprotocolforaninvestigatorinitiatedrandomizedcontrolledmulticenterclinicaltrial
AT timbofatmata naturalvsprogrammedcyclesforfrozenembryotransferstudyprotocolforaninvestigatorinitiatedrandomizedcontrolledmulticenterclinicaltrial
AT usadirebecca naturalvsprogrammedcyclesforfrozenembryotransferstudyprotocolforaninvestigatorinitiatedrandomizedcontrolledmulticenterclinicaltrial
AT vitekwendy naturalvsprogrammedcyclesforfrozenembryotransferstudyprotocolforaninvestigatorinitiatedrandomizedcontrolledmulticenterclinicaltrial
AT shadedavidm naturalvsprogrammedcyclesforfrozenembryotransferstudyprotocolforaninvestigatorinitiatedrandomizedcontrolledmulticenterclinicaltrial
AT segarsjames naturalvsprogrammedcyclesforfrozenembryotransferstudyprotocolforaninvestigatorinitiatedrandomizedcontrolledmulticenterclinicaltrial
AT bakervaleriel naturalvsprogrammedcyclesforfrozenembryotransferstudyprotocolforaninvestigatorinitiatedrandomizedcontrolledmulticenterclinicaltrial
AT naturalvsprogrammedcyclesforfrozenembryotransferstudyprotocolforaninvestigatorinitiatedrandomizedcontrolledmulticenterclinicaltrial