4.6 Article

Prospective randomized trial of multiple micronutrients in subfertile women undergoing ovulation induction: a pilot study

Journal

REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE
Volume 24, Issue 1, Pages 54-60

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.10.004

Keywords

multiple micronutrient (MMN) supplementation; pregnancy rates; subfertility; vitamins

Funding

  1. research and development department of the Royal Free Hospital

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated whether subfertile women undergoing ovulation induction using standard treatment regimens with clomiphene citrate/gonadotrophins have higher pregnancy rates when on an adjuvant multiple micronutrient (MMN) nutritional supplement compared with folic acid alone. A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted in a teaching-hospital fertility clinic on 58 subfertile women, of which 56 women completed the study. Women undergoing ovulation induction were allocated to either receive adjuvant MMN supplementation or folic acid. Clinical pregnancy rates and blood nutrient concentrations were assessed after the third treatment attempt or as soon as the women achieved pregnancy. Using intention-to-treat analysis, it was observed that women on adjuvant MMN supplementation had a significantly higher cumulative clinical pregnancy rate (66.7%) compared with those on folic acid (39.3%; P = 0.013). The ongoing pregnancy rate in women on MMN supplementation was 60.0% versus 25.0% (P < 0.02) in the folic-acid group. Further, women who were on MMN supplementation had significantly fewer attempts to achieve pregnancy compared with women on folic acid (P < 0.001). The results of this pilot study suggest that women who take adjuvant MMN supplementation during ovulation induction have a higher chance of pregnancy compared with women on folic acid. (C) 2011, Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available