Influence of Ovarian Stimulation with HP-hMG or Recombinant FSH on Embryo Quality Parameters in Patients Undergoing IVF
Overview
Affiliations
Background: There are limited data on the impact of different gonadotrophin preparations on embryo quality.
Methods: This evaluation was part of a randomized, assessor-blind, multinational trial, conducted in 731 women undergoing IVF after stimulation with highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin (HP-hMG; MENOPUR) (n = 363) or recombinant FSH (rFSH; GONAL-F) (n = 368). Ongoing pregnancy was the primary end-point [HP-hMG 27% and rFSH 22%; odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval, CI) 1.25 (0.89-1.75)]. All 7535 oocytes retrieved were evaluated daily until day 3 (embryo transfer) in a blinded manner both by local site embryologists and a central panel of three embryologists.
Results: The proportion of top-quality embryos per oocyte retrieved was higher with HP-hMG (11.3%) compared with rFSH (9.0%) (P = 0.044) in the local assessment, but comparable in the central assessment (9.5 and 8.0%, respectively). Significant differences in favour of HP-hMG were observed for number of blastomeres and degree of fragmentation, while uniformity of blastomere sizes, localization of fragments, frequency of multinucleation and homogeneous cytoplasm were comparable between HP-hMG and rFSH. The live birth, ongoing pregnancy and ongoing implantation rates for top-quality embryos were higher with HP-hMG than rFSH [48 versus 32% (P = 0.038), 48 versus 32% (P = 0.038), 41 versus 27% (P = 0.032)]. Both the proportion of embryos with at least 50% surviving blastomeres after cryopreservation and embryos resuming mitosis were more frequent with HP-hMG compared with rFSH.
Conclusions: Composition of gonadotrophin preparations used during ovarian stimulation has an impact on some embryo quality parameters. The capacity to implant of the top-quality embryos derived from stimulation with HP-hMG appears to be improved, although the mechanism needs to be elucidated.
Huong N, Thuy T, Anh P, Long H, Thang L, Ngoc V Int J Med Sci. 2025; 22(4):982-989.
PMID: 39991766 PMC: 11843143. DOI: 10.7150/ijms.106965.
Israeli T, Samara N, Barda S, Groutz A, Azem F, Amir H JBRA Assist Reprod. 2025; 29(1):136-144.
PMID: 39835796 PMC: 11867238. DOI: 10.5935/1518-0557.20240099.
Yetkinel S, Aytac P, Dogan Durdag G, Yaginc D, Kilicdag E, Simsek E Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2024; 310(5):2657-2662.
PMID: 39358454 DOI: 10.1007/s00404-024-07756-z.
Tu B, Zhang H, Chen L, Yang R, Liu P, Li R J Ovarian Res. 2024; 17(1):137.
PMID: 38961417 PMC: 11223314. DOI: 10.1186/s13048-024-01465-6.
Orvieto R, Shamir C, Aizer A J Assist Reprod Genet. 2024; 41(6):1585-1588.
PMID: 38520617 PMC: 11224205. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-024-03099-5.