Our findings that SNP-based PGT-A can mitigate the negative effects of maternal age on IVF outcomes in cycles with transfer, and that pregnancy outcomes from SET cycles are not significantly different from those of double-embryo transfer cycles, support the use of SET when transfers are combined with SNP-based PGT-A.

BackgroundAdministration of exogenous progesterone for luteal phase support has become a standard of practice. Intramuscular (IM) injections of progesterone in oil (PIO) and vaginal administration of progesterone are the primary routes of administration. This report describes the administration preferences expressed by women with infertility that were given progesterone vaginal insert (PVI) or progesterone in oil injections (PIO) for luteal phase support during fresh IVF cycles.MethodsA questionnaire to assess the tolerability, convenience, and ease of administration of PVI and PIO given for luteal phase support was completed by infertile women diagnosed with PCOS and planning to undergo IVF. The women participated in an open-label study of highly purified human menopausal gonadotropins (HP-hMG) compared with recombinant FSH (rFSH) given for stimulation of ovulation.ResultsMost women commented on the convenience and ease of administration of PVI, while a majority of women who administered IM PIO described experiencing pain. In addition, their partners often indicated that they had experienced at least some anxiety regarding the administration of PIO. The most distinguishing difference between PVI and PIO in this study was the overall patient preference for PVI. Despite the need to administer PVI either twice a day or three times a day, 82.6% of the patients in the PVI group found it “very” or “somewhat convenient” compared with 44.9% of women in the PIO group.ConclusionsThe results of this comprehensive, prospective patient survey, along with findings from other similar reports, suggest that PVI provides an easy-to-use and convenient method for providing the necessary luteal phase support for IVF cycles without the pain and inconvenience of daily IM PIO. Moreover, ongoing pregnancy rates with the well-tolerated PVI were as good as the pregnancy rates with PIO.Trial registrationClinicalTrial.gov, NCT00805935Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1742-4755-11-78) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

1. This work investigated the drug interaction potential of GSK1292263, a novel GPR119 agonist, with the HMG-coA reductase inhibitors simvastatin and rosuvastatin. 2. In vitro experiments assessed the inhibition of transporters and CYP enzymes by GSK1292263, and a clinical drug interaction study investigated the effect of GSK1292263 (300 mg BID) on the pharmacokinetic profile of simvastatin (40 mg single dose) and rosuvastatin (10 mg single dose). 3. In vitro, GSK1292263 demonstrated little/weak inhibition (IC50 values >30 μM) towards CYPs (CYP1A2, 2C9, 2C19, 2D6, 3A4), Pgp, OATP1B3, or OCT2. However, GSK1292263 inhibited BCRP and OATP1B1, which are transporters involved in statin disposition. 4. In the clinical study, small increases in the AUC(0-inf) of simvastatin [mean ratio (90% CI) of 1.34 (1.22, 1.48)] and rosuvastatin [mean ratio (90% CI) of 1.39 (1.30, 1.49)] were observed when co-administered with GSK1292263, which is consistent with an inhibitory effect on intestinal BCRP and CYP3A4. In contrast, GSK1292263 did not inhibit OATP1B1 based on the lack of changes in simvastatin acid exposure [mean AUC(0-inf) ratio (90% CI) of 1.05 (0.91, 1.21)]. 5. GSK1292263 has a weak drug interaction with simvastatin and rosuvastain. This study provides a mechanistic understanding of the in vivo inhibition of transporters and enzymes by GSK1292263.

No abstract