» Articles » PMID: 20846363

Recombinant Human Follicle-stimulating Hormone Produces More Oocytes with a Lower Total Dose Per Cycle in Assisted Reproductive Technologies Compared with Highly Purified Human Menopausal Gonadotrophin: a Meta-analysis

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2010 Sep 18
PMID 20846363
Citations 25
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Human menopausal gonadotrophins and recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone are the two main gonadotrophin products utilized for controlled ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technologies. In this meta-analysis, the number of oocytes was designated as the most relevant endpoint directly resulting from ovarian stimulation, and therefore where the drug effect may be estimated with the best sensitivity.

Methods: All published randomized controlled trials on ovarian stimulation comparing the two gonadotrophin products were evaluated. Internal validity was determined using Chalmers' validated scale. If trials did not meet the established quality criteria, a sensitivity analysis assessed the stability of the results. The comparison of continuous variables was conducted following the weighted mean difference and the standardized mean difference (Cohen's effect size) with the random model. Given the known relationship of baseline conditions on treatment endpoints, results were adjusted for age, body mass index and type of infertility.

Results: Sixteen studies involving 4040 patients were included. Treatment with human menopausal gonadotrophins resulted in fewer oocytes (-1.54; 95% CI: -2.53 to -0.56; P < 0.0001) compared to recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone. When adjusting for baseline conditions, the mean difference estimate was -2.10 (95% CI: -2.83 to -1.36; P < 0.001). A higher total dose of human menopausal gonadotrophin was necessary (mean difference, 235.46 IU [95% CI: 16.62 to 454.30; P = 0.03]; standardized mean difference, 0.33 [95% CI: 0.08 to 0.58; P = 0.01]). The pregnancy absolute risk difference (RD [hMG-r-hFSH]) for fresh transfers was 3% (P = 0.051), and the relative risk 1.10 (P = 0.06). When adjusted for baseline conditions, the relative risk was 1.04 (P = 0.49) and absolute difference was 0.01 (P = 0.34), respectively.

Conclusions: Because baseline conditions are predictive of outcome, meta-analytic results are more sensitive when these variables are considered. Using an endpoint closely associated with the stimulation period, sufficient sensitivity is achieved to compare gonadotrophin treatments. As the largest meta-analysis published to date on this subject, treatment with human menopausal gonadotrophins is characterized by fewer oocytes and a higher total dose. When considering only fresh transfers, pregnancy rates were similar.

Citing Articles

Effect of follicle-stimulating hormone dose on the risk of being classified as suboptimal responders according to the POSEIDON criteria.

Hochberg A, Dahan M, Yarali H, Vuong L, Esteves S J Assist Reprod Genet. 2024; 41(12):3387-3398.

PMID: 39422825 PMC: 11707116. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-024-03296-2.


Patients with low prognosis in ART: a Delphi consensus to identify potential clinical implications and measure the impact of POSEIDON criteria.

Alviggi C, Humaidan P, Fischer R, Conforti A, Dahan M, La Marca A Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2024; 22(1):122.

PMID: 39385174 PMC: 11465546. DOI: 10.1186/s12958-024-01291-x.


Follitropin Alpha versus Follitropin Beta in IVF/ICSI Cycle: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Cao J, Song J Drug Des Devel Ther. 2024; 18:4359-4369.

PMID: 39350950 PMC: 11441304. DOI: 10.2147/DDDT.S479700.


Significance of serum AMH and antral follicle count discrepancy for the prediction of ovarian stimulation response in Poseidon criteria patients.

Hochberg A, Dahan M, Yarali H, Vuong L, Esteves S J Assist Reprod Genet. 2024; 41(3):717-726.

PMID: 38358433 PMC: 10957796. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-024-03050-8.


Introduce an optimal method of ovarian stimulation in the polycystic ovarian syndrome affected: a randomized controlled trial.

Yahyaei A, Vesali S, Ghaffari F BMC Womens Health. 2023; 23(1):323.

PMID: 37340371 PMC: 10283261. DOI: 10.1186/s12905-023-02473-2.


References
1.
Afnan M . Identifying real differences in live birth rates between HMG and rFSH in IVF. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009; 18 Suppl 2:25-30. DOI: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)60445-2. View

2.
Harrison S, Wolf T, Abuzeid M . Administration of recombinant follicle stimulating hormone in a woman with allergic reaction to menotropin: a case report. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2000; 14(3):149-52. DOI: 10.3109/09513590009167674. View

3.
Coomarasamy A, Afnan M, Cheema D, van der Veen F, Bossuyt P, van Wely M . Urinary hMG versus recombinant FSH for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation following an agonist long down-regulation protocol in IVF or ICSI treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2007; 23(2):310-5. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dem305. View

4.
Bassett R, Lispi M, Ceccarelli D, Grimaldi L, Mancinelli M, Martelli F . Analytical identification of additional impurities in urinary-derived gonadotrophins. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009; 19(3):300-13. DOI: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)60163-0. View

5.
Balasch J, Penarrubia J, Fabregues F, Vidal E, Casamitjana R, Manau D . Ovarian responses to recombinant FSH or HMG in normogonadotrophic women following pituitary desensitization by a depot GnRH agonist for assisted reproduction. Reprod Biomed Online. 2003; 7(1):35-42. DOI: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)61726-9. View