Endocrine Profile Following Stimulation with Recombinant Follicle Stimulating Hormone and Luteinizing Hormone Versus Highly Purified Human Menopausal Gonadotropin

Overview

Journal Reprod Biol Endocrinol

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialties Endocrinology
Reproductive Medicine

Date 2014 Jan 31

PMID 24476504

Citations 10

Authors

Antonio Requena

Maria Cruz

Francisco J Ruiz

Juan A Garcia-Velasco

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Luteinizing hormone (LH) activity in human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) preparations is derived from human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) rather than LH. Therefore, we aimed to determine whether there are similarities in the endocrine and follicular profiles of serum and follicular fluid from controlled ovarian stimulation with the recombinant gonadotropins follicle-stimulating hormone plus luteinizing hormone (rFSH + rLH) or highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin (HP-hMG).

Methods: We performed a prospective observational study with 50 oocyte donors that received either a combination of recombinant gonadotropins (rFSH + rLH) or a mixture of urinary gonadotropins (HP-hMG) plus purified urinary FSH (uFSH). Results were analyzed using Student's t-test to compare continuous variables and the chi-squared test to compare proportions. P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results: Although more oocytes were retrieved after treatment with recombinant than urinary gonadotropins (16.5 vs. 11.8; P = 0.049), a higher proportion of metaphase II ova (71.2% vs. 80.6%; P = 0.003) were obtained using urinary gonadotropins. On day 6 and on the day of triggering, serum steroid hormone levels were slightly but not significantly elevated in the recombinant group compared with the urinary group. In follicular fluid, no statistical differences were observed for intra-follicular levels of steroid hormones between the two protocols; ongoing pregnancy rates were similar (46.1% vs. 46.1%).

Conclusions: Our data suggest that endocrinological and follicular profiles do not differ between rFSH + rLH and HP-hMG stimulation.

Citing Articles

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.

Luteinizing hormone supplementation in women with hypogonadotropic hypogonadism seeking fertility care: Insights from a narrative review.

Di Segni N, Busnelli A, Secchi M, Cirillo F, Levi-Setti P Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2022; 13:907249.

PMID: 35979440 PMC: 9377693. DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2022.907249.

Controlled ovarian stimulation with r-FSH plus r-LH vs. HMG plus r-FSH in patients candidate for IVF/ICSI cycles: An RCT.

Tehraninejad E, Farshbaf Taghinejad M, Hossein Rashidi B, Haghollahi F Int J Reprod Biomed. 2017; 15(7):435-440.

PMID: 29177245 PMC: 5601935.

A Comparison of Outcomes from Fertilization Cycles Stimulated with Follicle Stimulating Hormone Plus either Recombinant Luteinizing Hormone or Human Menopausal Gonadotropins in Subjects Treated with Long Gonadotropin Releasing Hormone Agonist....

Bleau N, Agdi M, Son W, Tan S, Dahan M Int J Fertil Steril. 2017; 11(2):79-84.

PMID: 28670424 PMC: 5347454. DOI: 10.22074/ijfs.2017.4759.

Pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and clinical aspects of ovulation induction agents: A review of the literature.

Kahyaoglu S, Yilmaz B, Isik A J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2017; 18(1):48-55.

PMID: 28506951 PMC: 5450211. DOI: 10.4274/jtgga.2016.0107.

References

Eldar-Geva T, Margalioth E, Brooks B, Algur N, Diamant Y . The origin of serum progesterone during the follicular phase of menotropin-stimulated cycles. Hum Reprod. 1998; 13(1):9-14. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/13.1.9. View

Platteau P, Nyboe Andersen A, Loft A, Smitz J, Danglas P, Devroey P . Highly purified HMG versus recombinant FSH for ovarian stimulation in IVF cycles. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008; 17(2):190-8. DOI: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)60194-0. View

Ziebe S, Lundin K, Janssens R, Helmgaard L, Arce J . Influence of ovarian stimulation with HP-hMG or recombinant FSH on embryo quality parameters in patients undergoing IVF. Hum Reprod. 2007; 22(9):2404-13. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dem221. View

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

Alikani M, Calderon G, Tomkin G, Garrisi J, Kokot M, Cohen J . Cleavage anomalies in early human embryos and survival after prolonged culture in-vitro. Hum Reprod. 2000; 15(12):2634-43. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/15.12.2634. View

Andersen C . Effect of FSH and its different isoforms on maturation of oocytes from pre-ovulatory follicles. Reprod Biomed Online. 2002; 5(3):232-9. DOI: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)61826-3. View

Remohi J, Gallardo E, Guanes P, Simon C, Pellicer A . Donor-recipient synchronization and the use of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonists to avoid the premature luteinizing hormone surge in oocyte donation. Hum Reprod. 1995; 10 Suppl 2:84-90. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/10.suppl_2.84. View

Garrido N, Zuzuarregui J, Meseguer M, Simon C, Remohi J, Pellicer A . Sperm and oocyte donor selection and management: experience of a 10 year follow-up of more than 2100 candidates. Hum Reprod. 2002; 17(12):3142-8. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/17.12.3142. View

Al-Inany H, Abou-Setta A, Aboulghar M, Mansour R, Serour G . Efficacy and safety of human menopausal gonadotrophins versus recombinant FSH: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008; 16(1):81-8. DOI: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)60559-7. View

10.

Devroey P, Pellicer A, Nyboe Andersen A, Arce J . A randomized assessor-blind trial comparing highly purified hMG and recombinant FSH in a GnRH antagonist cycle with compulsory single-blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril. 2012; 97(3):561-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.12.016. View

11.

Pacchiarotti A, Sbracia M, Frega A, Selman H, Rinaldi L, Pacchiarotti A . Urinary hMG (Meropur) versus recombinant FSH plus recombinant LH (Pergoveris) in IVF: a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2010; 94(6):2467-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.04.035. View

12.

Wolfenson C, Groisman J, Couto A, Hedenfalk M, Cortvrindt R, Smitz J . Batch-to-batch consistency of human-derived gonadotrophin preparations compared with recombinant preparations. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005; 10(4):442-54. DOI: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)60819-x. View

13.

Andersen C, Bungum L, Nyboe Andersen A, Humaidan P . Preovulatory progesterone concentration associates significantly to follicle number and LH concentration but not to pregnancy rate. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011; 23(2):187-95. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.04.003. View

14.

Smitz J, Andersen A, Devroey P, Arce J . Endocrine profile in serum and follicular fluid differs after ovarian stimulation with HP-hMG or recombinant FSH in IVF patients. Hum Reprod. 2006; 22(3):676-87. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/del445. View

15.

. Revised 2003 consensus on diagnostic criteria and long-term health risks related to polycystic ovary syndrome. Fertil Steril. 2004; 81(1):19-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2003.10.004. View

16.

van Wely M, Westergaard L, Bossuyt P, van der Veen F . Human menopausal gonadotropin versus recombinant follicle stimulation hormone for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003; (1):CD003973. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003973. View

17.

Nyboe Andersen A, Devroey P, Arce J . Clinical outcome following stimulation with highly purified hMG or recombinant FSH in patients undergoing IVF: a randomized assessor-blind controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2006; 21(12):3217-27. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/del284. View

18.

Casarini L, Lispi M, Longobardi S, Milosa F, La Marca A, Tagliasacchi D . LH and hCG action on the same receptor results in quantitatively and qualitatively different intracellular signalling. PLoS One. 2012; 7(10):e46682. PMC: 3465272. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046682. View