» Articles » PMID: 25780520

Efficacy of Highly Purified Urinary FSH Versus Recombinant FSH in Chinese Women over 37 Years Undergoing Assisted Reproductive Techniques

Overview
Date 2015 Mar 18
PMID 25780520
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Urine derived follicle-stimulating hormone (uFSH) contains a higher proportion of acidic isoforms, whereas recombinant FSH (rFSH) contains a higher proportion of less-acidic isoforms. Less-acidic isoforms have a faster clearance, and thus a shorter half-life than the acidic FSH isoforms. The slow clearance of the acidic isoforms has a longer half-life and higher biological activity. This study was designed to determine whether uFSH or rFSH is more effective in older Chinese women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques (ART).

Materials And Methods: This is a prospective, randomized, controlled cohort study. A total of 508 Chinese women over 37 years were randomized into two following study groups for their in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles: i. group A (n=254) were treated with rFSH, and ii. group B (n=254) were treated with uFSH. Both groups were suppressed with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogue using a long down-regulation protocol. The main outcomes for comparison were days of stimulation, estradiol (E2) on the day of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) administration, number of oocytes collected, amount of FSH used, quantity of FSH/oocyte, endometrial thickness at hCG day, M П oocyte rate, 2PN zygote rate, grade І embryo rate, number of embryos cryopreserved, pregnancy rate, implantation rate, abortion rate and the rate of no transferable embryos.

Results: Twenty two cycles including 16 cycles with poor ovarian response and six cycles with ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome were cancelled. There were 243 cycles left in each group. The patients treated with uFSH had a significantly higher 2PN zygote rate (87.4 vs. 76.6%, p<0.001), grade І embryo rate (49.8 vs. 40.8%, p<0.001) and endometrial thickness on day of hCG (11.8 mm vs. 11.2 mm, respectively, p=0.006) and a lower rate of no transferable embryos (1.2 vs. 5.3%, p=0.019) than women treated with rFSH. The other measures evaluated showed no statistically significant differences between groups (p>0.05).

Conclusion: This study showed that uFSH produced a significantly higher proportion of grade І embryos than rFSH in older Chinese women and there was a significantly lower chance of no transferable embryos in uFSH cycles. The clinical efficacy of the two gonadotropins was equivalent.

Citing Articles

The cumulative live birth rate of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone alfa verse urinary human follicle-stimulating hormone for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology cycles.

Yang C, Dong N, Li F, Ji Y, Pan Y, She H J Ovarian Res. 2022; 15(1):74.

PMID: 35729654 PMC: 9210702. DOI: 10.1186/s13048-022-01009-w.


Required amount of rFSH, HP-hMG and HP-FSH to reach a live birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Bordewijk E, Mol F, van der Veen F, van Wely M Hum Reprod Open. 2019; 2019(3):hoz008.

PMID: 31206036 PMC: 6561325. DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoz008.


Electrophysiological Responses to Different Follicle-Stimulating Hormone Isoforms on Human Cumulus Oophorus Cells: Preliminary Results.

Ayres L, Bos-Mikich A, Frantz N, Arruda L, da Silveira Loss E Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2018; 40(12):763-770.

PMID: 30536271 PMC: 10316937. DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1676037.


Urinary Versus Recombinant Gonadotropins for Ovarian Stimulation in Women Undergoing Treatment with Assisted Reproductive Technology.

Patki A, Bavishi H, Kumari C, Kamraj J, Venugopal M, Kunjimoideen K J Hum Reprod Sci. 2018; 11(2):119-124.

PMID: 30158806 PMC: 6094533. DOI: 10.4103/jhrs.JHRS_79_17.


Probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis of controlled ovarian stimulation with recombinant FSH plus recombinant LH vs. human menopausal gonadotropin for women undergoing IVF.

Mennini F, Marcellusi A, Viti R, Bini C, Carosso A, Revelli A Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2018; 16(1):68.

PMID: 30021630 PMC: 6052706. DOI: 10.1186/s12958-018-0386-2.

References
1.
Pellicer A, Ballester M, Serrano M, Mir A, Remohi J, Bonilla-Musoles F . Aetiological factors involved in the low response to gonadotrophins in infertile women with normal basal serum follicle stimulating hormone levels. Hum Reprod. 1994; 9(5):806-11. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a138600. View

2.
Daya S . Updated meta-analysis of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) versus urinary FSH for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril. 2002; 77(4):711-4. DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(01)03246-0. View

3.
Vitt U, Kloosterboer H, Rose U, Mulders J, Kiesel P, Bete S . Isoforms of human recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone: comparison of effects on murine follicle development in vitro. Biol Reprod. 1998; 59(4):854-61. DOI: 10.1095/biolreprod59.4.854. View

4.
Wide L, Naessen T, Sundstrom-Poromaa I, Eriksson K . Sulfonation and sialylation of gonadotropins in women during the menstrual cycle, after menopause, and with polycystic ovarian syndrome and in men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2007; 92(11):4410-7. DOI: 10.1210/jc.2007-1342. View

5.
Bergh C, Howles C, Borg K, Hamberger L, Josefsson B, Nilsson L . Recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone (r-hFSH; Gonal-F) versus highly purified urinary FSH (Metrodin HP): results of a randomized comparative study in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques. Hum Reprod. 1997; 12(10):2133-9. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/12.10.2133. View