Recombinant versus highly-purified, urinary follicle-stimulating hormone (r-FSH vs. HP-uFSH) in ovulation induction: A prospective, randomized study with cost-minimization analysis

Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology

Volumn 4, Issue , 2006, Pages

  Revelli, Alberto ^a   Poso, Francesca ^a   Gennarelli, Gianluca ^a   Moffa, Federica ^a   Grassi, Giuseppina ^a   Massobrio, Marco ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TURIN   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHORIONIC GONADOTROPIN; CLOMIFENE CITRATE; RECOMBINANT FOLLITROPIN; UROFOLLITROPIN;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST CONTROL; COST MINIMIZATION ANALYSIS; DELIVERY; DRUG COST; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG INDICATION; ECHOGRAPHY; ENDOMETRIUM; FEMALE; FEMALE INFERTILITY; FOLLICULAR PHASE; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; INFERTILITY THERAPY; INJECTION SITE ERYTHEMA; LOW DRUG DOSE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; OVARY FOLLICLE; OVARY HYPERSTIMULATION; OVARY POLYCYSTIC DISEASE; OVULATION INDUCTION; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SEXUAL INTERCOURSE; THICKNESS; TWIN PREGNANCY;

ADULT; CLOMIPHENE; COST SAVINGS; DRUG RESISTANCE; FEMALE; FOLLICLE STIMULATING HORMONE, HUMAN; HUMANS; INFERTILITY, FEMALE; OVULATION INDUCTION; POLYCYSTIC OVARY SYNDROME; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY RATE; RECOMBINANT PROTEINS; UROFOLLITROPIN;

EID: 33747418931     PISSN: 14777827     EISSN: 14777827     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1477-7827-4-38     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Risquez F: Induction of follicular growth and ovulation with urinary and recombinant gonadotropins. Reprod Biomed Online 2001, 3:54-72.
2. Out HJ, Mannaerts BMJL, Driessen SGAJ, Coelingh Bennink HJT: A prospective, randomized, assessor-blind, multicentre study comparing recombinant and urinary follicle-stimulating hormone (Puregon vs Metrodin) in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1995, 10:2534-2540.
3. Out HJ, Driessen SG, Mannaerts BM, Coelingh Bennink HJ: Recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (follitropin beta, Puregon) yields higher pregnancy rates in in vitro fertilization than urinary gonadotropins. Fertil Steril 1997, 68:138-142.
4. Bergh C, Howles CM, Borg K, Hamberger L, Josefsson B, Nilsson L, Wikland M: 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, 12:2133-2139.
5. Strehler E, Abt M, El-Danasouri I, De Santo M, Sterzik K: Impact of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone and human menopausal gonadotropins on in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril 2001, 75:332-336.
6. Hugues JN, Bry-Gauillard H, Bständig B, Uzan M, Cedrin-Durnerin I: Comparison of recombinant and urinary follicle-stimulating hormone preparations in short-term gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist protocol for in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. J Ass Reprod Genet 2001, 18:191-196.
7. Ravhon A, Lavery S, Aurell R, Trew G, Margara R, Winston R. Cilinical experience with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and urinary FSH: a retrospective casecontrolled analysis. Fertil Steril 2001, 75:92-95.
8. Daya S, Gunby J: Recombinant versus urinary follicle stimulating hormone for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction Hum Reprod 1999, 14:2207-221 S.
9. Silverberg KM, Ormand RA, Hansard LJ, Vaughn TC: Recombinant FSH provides more efficient, cost-effective stimulation for Ovulation Induction/Intrauterine Insemination (OI/IUI) cycles than higlhy purified urinary FSH. Fertfi Steril 2001, 75(Suppl I):S15-S16.
10. Matorras R, Recio V, Corcóstegui B, Rodríguez-Escuedero FJ: Recombinant human FSH versus highly purified urinary FSH: a randomized study in intrauterine insemination with husbands' spermatozo. Hum Reprod 2000, 16:1231-1234.
11. Coelingh Bennink HJT, Fauser BCJM, Out HJ: Recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH; Puregon) is more efficient than urinary FSH (Metrodin) in women with clomiphene citrate-resistant, normogonadotropic, chronic anovulation: a prospective, multicenter, assessor-blind, randomized, clinical trial. Fertil Steril 1998, 69:19-25.
12. Yarali H, Bukulmez O, Gurgan T: Urinary follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) versus recombinant FSH in clomiphene citrate-resistant, normogonadotropic, chronic anovulation: a prospective randomized study. Fertil Steril 1999, 72:276-281.
13. Loumaye E, Martineau I, Piazzi A. O'Dea L, Ince S, Howles C, Decosterd G, Van Loon K, Galazka A: Clinical assessment of human gonadotrophins produced by recombinant DNA technology. Hum Reprod 1996, 11 (Suppi I):95-107.
14. Fulghesu AM, Apa R, Belosi C, Ciampelli M, Selvaggi LJr, Cucinelli F Caruso A, Mancuso S, Lanzone A: Recombinant versus urinary follicle-stimulating hormone in the low-dose regimen in anovulatory patients with polycystic ovary syndrome: a safer and more effective treatment. Horm Res 2001, 55:224-228.
15. Hugues JN, Bständlg Bry-Gauillard B, Uzan I, Cédrin-Durnerin I: Comparison of recombinant and urinary follicle stimulating hormone preparations' effectiveness for achievement of follicular selection in chronic anovulation. Reprod BioMed Online 2001, 3:195-198.
16. Bayram N, vanWely M, vander Veen F: Recombinant FSH versus urinary gonadotrophins or recombinant FSH for ovulation induction in subfertility associated with polycystic ovary syndrome. 2002, 1:1-23.
17. Gerli S, Casini ML, Unfer V, Costabile L, Mignosa M, DiRenzo GC: Ovulation induction with urinary FSH or recombinant FSH in polycystic ovary sindrome patients: a prospective randomized analysis of cost-effectiveness. Reprod Biomed Online 2004, 9:494-499.
18. Gerli S, Casini ML, Unfer V, Costabile L, Bini V, Di Renzo GC: Recombinant versus urinary follicle-stimulating hormone in intrauterine insemination cycles: a prospective, randomized analysis of cost effectiveness. Fertil Steril 2004, 82:573-578.
19. World Health Organization: WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen-Cervical Mucus Interaction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK; 1992.
20. Howles CM: Genetic engineering of human FSH (Gonal F). Hum Reprod Update 1996, 2:172-191.
21. Al-Inany H, Afnan M: Models of cost-effectiveness of recombinant FSH versus urinary FSH. Hum Reprod 2002, 17:1671-1674.
22. Frydman R, Howles CM, Truong F: A double-blind, randomized study to compare recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone (FSH; Gonal-F®) with highly purified urinary FSH (Metrodin HIP) in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques including intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod 2000, 15:520-525.
23. Schats R, De Sutter P, Bassil S, Kremer JAM, Tournaye H, Donnez J: Ovarian stimulation during assisted reproduction treatment: a comparison of recombinant and highly purified urinary human FSH. Hum Reprod 2000, 15:1691-1697.
24. Olijve W, de Boer W, Mulders JWM, van Wezenbeeck PM: Molecular biology and biochemistry of human recombinant stimulating hormone (Puregon). Mol Hum Reprod 1996, 5:371-382.
25. Balasch J, Fabregues F, Pennarrubia J, Creus M, Vidal R, Casamitjana I, Manau D, Vanrell JA: Follicular development and hormonal levels following highly purified or recombinant follicle stimulating hormone administration in ovulatory women and WHO group II anovulatory infertile patients. J Ass Reprod Genet 1998, 15:552-559.
26. Daya S, Ledger W, Auray JP, Duru G, Silverberg K, Wikland M, Bouzayen R, Howles CM, Beresniak A: Cost-effectiveness modelling of recombinant FSH versus urinary FSH in assisted reproduction techniques in the UK. Hum Reprod 2001, 16:2563-2569.