4.7 Article

A randomized trial of letrozole versus clomiphene citrate in women undergoing superovulation

Journal

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
Volume 82, Issue 6, Pages 1561-1563

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.04.070

Keywords

randomized trial; letrozole; clomiphene; superovulation; ovulation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To compare the effects of the aromatase inhibitor letrozole (7.5 mg) and clomiphene citrate (CC; 100 mg) in women undergoing superovulation and IUI. Design: Prospective randomized trial. Setting: University teaching hospital. Patient(s): We studied a total of 238 cycles of superovulation and IUI in women with idiopathic infertility. Interventions: Patients were randomized into treatment with 7.5 mg of letrozole daily (74 patients, 115 cycles) or 100 mg of CC daily (80 patients, 123 cycles). Main Outcome Measure(s): Number of follicles, endometrial thickness, pregnancy rate, and miscarriage rate. Result(s): The mean age, parity, and duration of infertility in both groups of patients were similar. There was no significant difference between the total number of developing follicles in the letrozole (5.7 +/- 3.7) and in the CC groups (4.8 +/- 2.5). The number of follicles of greater than or equal to14 mint and of >18 mm were 2.1 +/- 1.2 and 1.4 +/- 0.7 in the letrozole group, and 1.7 +/- 0.9 and 1.1 +/- 0.5 in the CC group, respectively. No difference was found in the endometrial thickness between the two groups (7.1 +/- 0.2 mm in the letrozole group, 8.2 +/- 5.9 tram in the CC group). The pregnancy rate per cycle was 11.5% in the letrozole group and 8.9% in the CC group. Four of the 11 pregnancies in the CC group resulted in a miscarriage (36.6%). Conclusion(s): Superovulation and IUI with letrozole and CC are associated with similar pregnancy rates, but the miscarriage rate is higher with CC. The ideal dose of letrozole remains unknown and further study is needed. (C) 2004 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available