Pregnancy OutcomeNCT05457335
2.Comparison of the Live Birth Rate of PGT Versus Expectant Management in Patients With RPL
An observational study of Pregnancy Outcome and Time-to-Pregnancy, run by Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital at 1 site in China.
Trial summary
Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is a multifactorial disorder defined by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) as two or more clinical miscarriages (CMs). However, US guidelines differ with European guidelines which defined recurrent miscarriage as three consecutive prior pregnancy losses (The Royal… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 20 to 45 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Pregnancy Outcome, Time-to-Pregnancy
- What is being tested?
- undergoing PGT
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- How many people
- 280 participants
- Where
- 1 siteChina
- Study dates
- 15 Jul 2022to 15 Jul 2024
- How long will I take part?
- 12 Months
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 20 to 45 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult
Study population: Infertile women who have medical indication attending the Assisted Reproduction clinic, Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital for IVF will be recruited for study after explanation and counseling if they fulfill the inclusion criteria and do not have the exclusion criteria.
Who may be able to join
- Age of women <45 years
- Two or more clinical miscarriages with identified foetal chromosomal abnormalities, or three consecutive prior pregnancy losses between 6 and 20 weeks gestational age, excluding biochemical pregnancies.
Who cannot join
- Presence of APLA including anti-cardiolipin antibody, lupus anticoagulant and b-2-glycoprotein
- Diagnosis for hypothyroidism and hyperprolactinemia with uncontrolled serum thyroid-stimulating hormone and prolactin
- Having a anomaly uterine cavity
- Abormal parental karyotypes (translocation carriers and monogenetic defect)
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
China1 site
Shanghai first Maternity and Infant health hospital, Tong Ji University
Shanghai, 200051
Zhi Qin Chen, Master, 86-21-54035206 ext. 2012, ptchen1@hotmail.com
Hong chen, Master, 86-21-54035206 ext. 2012, charrychin@51mch.com
About this study
Official title: Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital,
Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is a multifactorial disorder defined by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) as two or more clinical miscarriages (CMs). However, US guidelines differ with European guidelines which defined recurrent miscarriage as three consecutive prior pregnancy losses (The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Green-Top Guideline, 2011). Thus, there is currently no uniformly agreed upon definition of RPL, the ASRM recommends that a clinical evaluation for RPL commence following two early pregnancy losses, and that a threshold of three prior pregnancy losses be utilized for epidemiologic studies (The Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2012).
Although the overall incidence of RPL is low and estimated at 5% of women (The Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2012), it presents a significant diagnostic and treatment challenge for both patients and clinicians. Guidelines for the evaluation of patients with RPL include evaluation of the uterine cavity and blood work to determine parental karyotypes and the presence of anti-phospholipid antibodies (APLA). In at least 50% of patients, however, an etiology for RPL is not identified (Stirrat, 1990; Stephenson, 1996; Stephenson and Kutteh, 2007; The Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2012). The ASRM recommends expectant management as the current standard of care for patients with unexplained RPL (The Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2012). Counseling patients with unexplained RPL to pursue expectant management presents several challenges. Patients often feel an urgency to conceive and expectant management can feel like a passive and time-consuming approach to conception. In addition, patients often carry a significant amount of guilt and grief in association with miscarriage. Attempting spontaneous conception can feel emotionally vulnerable; Despite reassurance of good prognosis, patients doubt that a subsequent pregnancy will be successful (Lachmi-Epstein et al., 2012). For all of these reasons, IVF and preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) have been investigated as a treatment strategy in RPL patients with the goals of shortening time to pregnancy, decreasing CM rates and increasing live birth (LB) rates.
Read the detailed description
The role of aneuploidy in CM is well known, with over 50% of pregnancy losses attributed to fetal chromosomal abnormalities (Viaggi et al., 2013). Furthermore, for patients greater than 35 years of age with RPL, fetal aneuploidy is responsible for up to 80% of first trimester losses (Marquard et al., 2010). Due to the prevalence of aneuploidy in first trimester losses and in the RPL population, PGT has been proposed as a method for reducing miscarriage by selecting only euploid embryos for transfer (Shahine and Lathi, 2014). The ultimate effect of PGT on increasing LB rates in the RPL population and the time interval to conception are areas of investigation. Current studies are largely retrospective in design with several limitations. For example: Inconsistent definitions of CM and RPL are employed. In addition, the treatment group (IVF and PGT) has been compared with a variety of control groups including IVF without PGT, a control infertile population, or to predicted LB and CM rates based on age and clinical history, but has not been compared with expectant management (Shahine and Lathi, 2014). Finally, the majority of studies report clinical outcomes only of patients who reach PGT biopsy and/or embryo transfer, so all possible cycle outcomes are not captured (Hodes-Wertz et al., 2012).
For the absence of well-designed prospective studies with high level of evidence comparing IVF and PGT to the current standard of care, expectant management, have been performed to date for the treatment of RPL patients. The objective of this study is to perform an intent to treat analysis comparing live birth rate of IVF and PGT to expectant management in fertile RPL patients in one year followed- up period.
- Conditions
- Pregnancy Outcome, Time-to-Pregnancy
- Being tested
- undergoing PGT
- Keywords
- preimplantation genetic testing, expectant management, live birth rate
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
undergoing PGTProcedure or surgery
Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| PGT-A group | For patients undergoing PGT-A, trophectoderm biopsy was performed on good quality blastocysts and about five cells were aspirated gently and separated from the blastocyst by applying multiple pulses of a noncontact 1.48- μm diode laser (Saturn 5 ActiveTM, Cooper Surgical, Inc., CT, USA) through a zona pellucida opening created by the laser. The biopsied cells were washed three times in 1 × phosphate buffered saline (PBS) (Life Technologies, NY, USA), transferred to a PCR tube containing 2.5 μl 1× PBS and cryopreserved at -80◦C until analysis. Genetic laboratories analyzed and interpreted biopsies. The genetic screening was performed using the next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based assay VeriSeq PGS following standard protocols and manufacturer recommendations (Illumina Inc., San Diego, USA）. The PGT-A report can be euploid, aneuploidy, mosaic and non-conclusive. Euploid embryos were transferred while aneuploid and mosaic embryos were not replaced. Receives: Procedure: undergoing PGT | |
| Expectant management group | In the this group, one attempt at conception was defined as one calendar months trying to conceive spontaneously. Either in natural cycles for ovulatory women and in clomiphene/letrozol induced cycles for anovulatory women with or without ultrasound monitoring. Receives: Procedure: undergoing PGT |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
cumulative live birth rate leading to live birth
the ongoing status had to be achieved within 12 months since patient inclusion
Measured: 12 Months
time to live birth (TTLB).
TTLB was measured as the time from patient inclusion to a live birth.
Measured: 24 Months
Secondary outcomes (7)
Euploidy rate of blastocysts
the number of euploid embryos divided by the total number of blastocysts
Measured: 30 days
Miscarriage rate
the number of miscarriages before 22 weeks per pregnancy
Measured: 3 months
Number of oocytes retrieved
oocytes retrieved per patient
Measured: 14 days
Cycle Cancellation rate
number of PGT cycle with no viable embryo to transfer divided by number of PGT cycle initiated
Measured: 28 days
Clinical pregnancy per transfer /per PGTcycle/per attempt for natural conception
presence of intrauterine gestational sac on ultrasound
Measured: 28 days
Implantation rate
number of gestational sacs per embryo transferred
Measured: 28 days
on-going pregnancy per transfer /per PGTcycle/per attempt
viable pregnancy beyond gestation 8 weeks
Measured: 3 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted14 Jul 2022
- Study start15 Jul 2022 (estimated)
- Primary completion15 Jul 2023 (estimated)
- Study completion15 Jul 2024 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (11)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Pregnancy OutcomeStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 280 participants (estimated)
- Target duration
- 12 Months
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, chen zhi qin, Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital
- Investigators
- Zhi Qin Chen, MD, Principal investigator, Shanghai first maternty and infant hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05457335
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- shanghai first maternity
- Status last verified
- Jul 2022
- First submitted
- 11 Jul 2022
- Last updated
- 14 Jul 2022
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Publications
Brigham SA, Conlon C, Farquharson RG. A longitudinal study of pregnancy outcome following idiopathic recurrent miscarriage. Hum Reprod. 1999 Nov;14(11):2868-71. doi: 10.1093/humrep/14.11.2868.
PubMed 10548638Forman EJ, Hong KH, Ferry KM, Tao X, Taylor D, Levy B, Treff NR, Scott RT Jr. In vitro fertilization with single euploid blastocyst transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2013 Jul;100(1):100-7.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.02.056. Epub 2013 Mar 30.
PubMed 23548942Lachmi-Epstein A, Mazor M, Bashiri A. [Psychological and mental aspects and "tender loving care" among women with recurrent pregnancy losses]. Harefuah. 2012 Nov;151(11):633-7, 654. Hebrew.
PubMed 23367735Marquard K, Westphal LM, Milki AA, Lathi RB. Etiology of recurrent pregnancy loss in women over the age of 35 years. Fertil Steril. 2010 Sep;94(4):1473-1477. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.06.041. Epub 2009 Jul 30.
PubMed 19643401Murugappan G, Ohno MS, Lathi RB. Cost-effectiveness analysis of preimplantation genetic screening and in vitro fertilization versus expectant management in patients with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss. Fertil Steril. 2015 May;103(5):1215-20. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.02.012. Epub 2015 Mar 13.
PubMed 25772770Perfetto CO, Murugappan G, Lathi RB. Time to next pregnancy in spontaneous pregnancies versus treatment cycles in fertile patients with recurrent pregnancy loss. Fertil Res Pract. 2015 Apr 21;1:5. doi: 10.1186/2054-7099-1-5. eCollection 2015.
PubMed 28620510Shahine L, Lathi R. Recurrent pregnancy loss: evaluation and treatment. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2015 Mar;42(1):117-34. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2014.10.002.
PubMed 25681844Stephenson MD. Frequency of factors associated with habitual abortion in 197 couples. Fertil Steril. 1996 Jul;66(1):24-9.
PubMed 8752606Stirrat GM. Recurrent miscarriage. Lancet 1990;336:673- 675. The PracticeCommittee of the American Society for ReproductiveMedicine. Evaluation and Treatment of Recurrent Pregnancy Loss: A Committee Opinion. Feril Steril 2012;98:1103 - 1111
Regan L, Backos M, Rai R. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The RCOG Green-Top Guideline No. 17. The Investigation and Treatment of Couples with Recurrent First-trimester and Second-trimester Miscarriage. 2011
Viaggi CD, Cavani S, Malacarne M, Floriddia F, Zerega G, Baldo C, Mogni M, Castagnetta M, Piombo G, Coviello DA, Camandona F, Lijoi D, Insegno W, Traversa M, Pierluigi M. First-trimester euploid miscarriages analysed by array-CGH. J Appl Genet. 2013 Aug;54(3):353-9. doi: 10.1007/s13353-013-0157-x. Epub 2013 Jun 19.
PubMed 23780398
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 14 Jul 2022. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital,
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05457335
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- shanghai first maternity
- Conditions
- Pregnancy Outcome, Time-to-Pregnancy
- Keywords
- preimplantation genetic testing, expectant management, live birth rate
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 280 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Shanghai First Maternity and Infant HospitalUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 15 Jul 2022 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- 15 Jul 2023 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 15 Jul 2024 (estimated)
- First posted
- 14 Jul 2022 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is a multifactorial disorder defined by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) as two or more clinical miscarriages (CMs). However, US guidelines differ with European guidelines which defined recurrent miscarriage as three consecutive prior pregnancy losses (The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Green-Top Guideline, 2011). Thus, there is currently no uniformly agreed upon definition of RPL, the ASRM recommends that a clinical evaluation for RPL commence following two early pregnancy losses, and that a threshold of three prior pregnancy losses be utilized for epidemiologic studies (The Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2012).
Although the overall incidence of RPL is low and estimated at 5% of women (The Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2012), it presents a significant diagnostic and treatment challenge for both patients and clinicians. Guidelines for the evaluation of patients with RPL include evaluation of the uterine cavity and blood work to determine parental karyotypes and the presence of anti-phospholipid antibodies (APLA). In at least 50% of patients, however, an etiology for RPL is not identified (Stirrat, 1990; Stephenson, 1996; Stephenson and Kutteh, 2007; The Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2012). The ASRM recommends expectant management as the current standard of care for patients with unexplained RPL (The Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2012). Counseling patients with unexplained RPL to pursue expectant management presents several challenges. Patients often feel an urgency to conceive and expectant management can feel like a passive and time-consuming approach to conception. In addition, patients often carry a significant amount of guilt and grief in association with miscarriage. Attempting spontaneous conception can feel emotionally vulnerable; Despite reassurance of good prognosis, patients doubt that a subsequent pregnancy will be successful (Lachmi-Epstein et al., 2012). For all of these reasons, IVF and preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) have been investigated as a treatment strategy in RPL patients with the goals of shortening time to pregnancy, decreasing CM rates and increasing live birth (LB) rates.
Detailed description
The role of aneuploidy in CM is well known, with over 50% of pregnancy losses attributed to fetal chromosomal abnormalities (Viaggi et al., 2013). Furthermore, for patients greater than 35 years of age with RPL, fetal aneuploidy is responsible for up to 80% of first trimester losses (Marquard et al., 2010). Due to the prevalence of aneuploidy in first trimester losses and in the RPL population, PGT has been proposed as a method for reducing miscarriage by selecting only euploid embryos for transfer (Shahine and Lathi, 2014). The ultimate effect of PGT on increasing LB rates in the RPL population and the time interval to conception are areas of investigation. Current studies are largely retrospective in design with several limitations. For example: Inconsistent definitions of CM and RPL are employed. In addition, the treatment group (IVF and PGT) has been compared with a variety of control groups including IVF without PGT, a control infertile population, or to predicted LB and CM rates based on age and clinical history, but has not been compared with expectant management (Shahine and Lathi, 2014). Finally, the majority of studies report clinical outcomes only of patients who reach PGT biopsy and/or embryo transfer, so all possible cycle outcomes are not captured (Hodes-Wertz et al., 2012).
For the absence of well-designed prospective studies with high level of evidence comparing IVF and PGT to the current standard of care, expectant management, have been performed to date for the treatment of RPL patients. The objective of this study is to perform an intent to treat analysis comparing live birth rate of IVF and PGT to expectant management in fertile RPL patients in one year followed- up period.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Target follow-up
- 12 Months
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| PGT-A group | – | Procedure: undergoing PGTFor patients undergoing PGT-A, trophectoderm biopsy was performed on good quality blastocysts and about five cells were aspirated gently and separated from the blastocyst by applying multiple pulses of a noncontact 1.48- μm diode laser (Saturn 5 ActiveTM, Cooper Surgical, Inc., CT, USA) through a zona pellucida opening created by the laser. The biopsied cells were washed three times in 1 × phosphate buffered saline (PBS) (Life Technologies, NY, USA), transferred to a PCR tube containing 2.5 μl 1× PBS and cryopreserved at -80◦C until analysis. Genetic laboratories analyzed and interpreted biopsies. The genetic screening was performed using the next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based assay VeriSeq PGS following standard protocols and manufacturer recommendations (Illumina Inc., San Diego, USA）. The PGT-A report can be euploid, aneuploidy, mosaic and non-conclusive. Euploid embryos were transferred while aneuploid and mosaic embryos were not replaced. |
| Expectant management group | – | Procedure: undergoing PGTIn the this group, one attempt at conception was defined as one calendar months trying to conceive spontaneously. Either in natural cycles for ovulatory women and in clomiphene/letrozol induced cycles for anovulatory women with or without ultrasound monitoring. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 20 to 45 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
- Study population
- Infertile women who have medical indication attending the Assisted Reproduction clinic, Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital for IVF will be recruited for study after explanation and counseling if they fulfill the inclusion criteria and do not have the exclusion criteria.
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Age of women <45 years
- Two or more clinical miscarriages with identified foetal chromosomal abnormalities, or three consecutive prior pregnancy losses between 6 and 20 weeks gestational age, excluding biochemical pregnancies.
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Presence of APLA including anti-cardiolipin antibody, lupus anticoagulant and b-2-glycoprotein
- Diagnosis for hypothyroidism and hyperprolactinemia with uncontrolled serum thyroid-stimulating hormone and prolactin
- Having a anomaly uterine cavity
- Abormal parental karyotypes (translocation carriers and monogenetic defect)
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| undergoing PGTPreimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy | Procedure or surgery | Expectant management group, PGT-A group |
Primary outcome
cumulative live birth rate leading to live birth
Time frame: 12 Months
the ongoing status had to be achieved within 12 months since patient inclusion
time to live birth (TTLB).
Time frame: 24 Months
TTLB was measured as the time from patient inclusion to a live birth.
7 secondary outcomes
Euploidy rate of blastocysts
Time frame: 30 days
Miscarriage rate
Time frame: 3 months
Number of oocytes retrieved
Time frame: 14 days
Cycle Cancellation rate
Time frame: 28 days
Clinical pregnancy per transfer /per PGTcycle/per attempt for natural conception
Time frame: 28 days
Implantation rate
Time frame: 28 days
on-going pregnancy per transfer /per PGTcycle/per attempt
Time frame: 3 months
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 14 Jul 2022.
- Results publication: PubMed 10548638Brigham SA, Conlon C, Farquharson RG. A longitudinal study of pregnancy outcome following idiopathic recurrent miscarriage. Hum Reprod. 1999 Nov;14(11):2868-71. doi: 10.1093/humrep/14.11.2868.
- Results publication: PubMed 23548942Forman EJ, Hong KH, Ferry KM, Tao X, Taylor D, Levy B, Treff NR, Scott RT Jr. In vitro fertilization with single euploid blastocyst transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2013 Jul;100(1):100-7.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.02.056. Epub 2013 Mar 30.
- Results publication: PubMed 23367735Lachmi-Epstein A, Mazor M, Bashiri A. [Psychological and mental aspects and "tender loving care" among women with recurrent pregnancy losses]. Harefuah. 2012 Nov;151(11):633-7, 654. Hebrew.
- Results publication: PubMed 19643401Marquard K, Westphal LM, Milki AA, Lathi RB. Etiology of recurrent pregnancy loss in women over the age of 35 years. Fertil Steril. 2010 Sep;94(4):1473-1477. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.06.041. Epub 2009 Jul 30.
- Results publication: PubMed 25772770Murugappan G, Ohno MS, Lathi RB. Cost-effectiveness analysis of preimplantation genetic screening and in vitro fertilization versus expectant management in patients with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss. Fertil Steril. 2015 May;103(5):1215-20. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.02.012. Epub 2015 Mar 13.
- Results publication: PubMed 28620510Perfetto CO, Murugappan G, Lathi RB. Time to next pregnancy in spontaneous pregnancies versus treatment cycles in fertile patients with recurrent pregnancy loss. Fertil Res Pract. 2015 Apr 21;1:5. doi: 10.1186/2054-7099-1-5. eCollection 2015.
- Results publication: PubMed 25681844Shahine L, Lathi R. Recurrent pregnancy loss: evaluation and treatment. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2015 Mar;42(1):117-34. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2014.10.002.
- Results publication: PubMed 8752606Stephenson MD. Frequency of factors associated with habitual abortion in 197 couples. Fertil Steril. 1996 Jul;66(1):24-9.
- Results publicationStirrat GM. Recurrent miscarriage. Lancet 1990;336:673- 675. The PracticeCommittee of the American Society for ReproductiveMedicine. Evaluation and Treatment of Recurrent Pregnancy Loss: A Committee Opinion. Feril Steril 2012;98:1103 - 1111
- Results publicationRegan L, Backos M, Rai R. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The RCOG Green-Top Guideline No. 17. The Investigation and Treatment of Couples with Recurrent First-trimester and Second-trimester Miscarriage. 2011
- Results publication: PubMed 23780398Viaggi CD, Cavani S, Malacarne M, Floriddia F, Zerega G, Baldo C, Mogni M, Castagnetta M, Piombo G, Coviello DA, Camandona F, Lijoi D, Insegno W, Traversa M, Pierluigi M. First-trimester euploid miscarriages analysed by array-CGH. J Appl Genet. 2013 Aug;54(3):353-9. doi: 10.1007/s13353-013-0157-x. Epub 2013 Jun 19.
Related trials for Pregnancy Outcome
RecruitingPhase 3
A Phase III Renal Outcomes and Cardiovascular Mortality Study to Investigate the Efficacy and Safety of Baxdrostat in Combination With Dapagliflozin in Participants With Chronic Kidney Disease and High Blood Pressure
Chronic Kidney Disease and Hypertension
Enrolling by invitation
Effect of Omega-3 Supplementation on Pregnant Outcomes and Inflammation Markers of Women Infected With HIV Using Antiretroviral Therapy
Pregnant HIV Positive Women
RecruitingObservational study
Registry Platform Urologic Cancer
Renal Cell Carcinoma, Urothelial Carcinoma
Recruiting
Effect of Intrauterine Insemination on Subsequent Pregnancy Outcomes in Couples With Unexplained Pregnancy Loss: A Multicenter, Open-label, Randomized Controlled Trial
Unexplained Pregnancy Loss
Not yet recruiting
A Study to Lower Blood Pressure One Year After Childbirth in Women Who Had Preeclampsia
Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes, Cardiovascular Diseases
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Zhi Qin Chen, MD principal investigator
Shanghai first maternty and infant hospital
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Pregnancy Outcome and Time-to-Pregnancy, run by Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital at 1 site in China.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 14 Jul 2022. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in China. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Results are not available in the source record.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Zhi Qin Chen, MD (86-21-540355206 ext. 2078, ptchen1@hotmail.com), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
cumulative live birth rate leading to live birth (time frame: 12 Months). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT05457335, which also lists 11 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 14 Jul 2022.