Pregnancy outcome following in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) in women aged <37, undergoing ovulation induction with human FSH compared with recombinant FSH: A randomised controlled study

European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 97-102

  Gholami, Hossein ^a   Vicari, E ^b   Molis, M ^c   Lavignera, S ^b   Papaleo, E ^d   Cappiello, F ^c  

^a ASIC   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CATANIA   (Italy)

^c Villa del Sole Clinic   (Italy)

^d VITA SALUTE SAN RAFFAELE UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

Author keywords

COH; Human derived FSH; IVF ET cycles; Recombinant FSH

Indexed keywords

FOLLITROPIN; GONADORELIN AGONIST; RECOMBINANT FOLLITROPIN;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BIOASSAY; CELL STIMULATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOWN REGULATION; EMBRYO TRANSFER; FEMALE; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; HUMAN; HYPOPHYSIS; IMPLANTATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MULTICENTER STUDY; PATIENT SELECTION; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL;

ADULT; EMBRYO TRANSFER; FEMALE; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; FOLLICLE STIMULATING HORMONE, HUMAN; HUMANS; OVULATION INDUCTION; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RECOMBINANT PROTEINS;

EID: 77949523250     PISSN: 11283602     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. STANGER JD AND YOVICH JL. Reduced in vitro fertilization of human oocytes from patients with raised basal luteinizing hormone levels during the follicular phase. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1985; 92: 385-392.
2. HOMPES PG, BROEKMANS FJ, HOOZEMANS DA, SCHATS R; FIRM GROUP. Effectiveness of highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin vs. recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone in first-cycle in vitro fertilization-intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients. Fertil Steril 2008; 89: 1685-1693.
3. DAYA S, GUNBY J, HUGHES EG, COLLINS JA, SAGLE MA. Follicle-stimulating hormone versus human menopausal gonadotrophin for in vitro fertilization cycles: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 1995; 64: 77-86.
4. DAYA S. Follicle-stimulating hormone and human menopausal gonadotropin for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000; (2): CD000061.
5. BAKER VL, FUJIMOTO VY, KETTEL LM, ADAMSON GD, HOEHLER F, JONES CE, SOULES MR. Clinical efficacy of highly purified urinary FSH versus recombinant FSH in volunteers undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a randomized, multicenter, investigator-blind trial. Fertil Steril 2008; 91: 1005-1011.
6. LOUMAYE E, CAMPBELL R, SALAT-BAROUX J. Human follicle stimulating hormone produced by recombinant DNA technology: a review for clinicians. Hum Reprod Update 1995; 1: 188-199.
7. DAYA S, GUNBY J. Recombinant versus urinay follicle stimulating hormone for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod 1999; 14: 2207-2215.
8. AGRAWAL R, HOLMES J, JACOBS HS. Follicle-stimulating hormone or human menopausal gonadotropin for ovarian stimulation in in vitro fertilization cycles: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2000; 73: 338-343.
9. AL-INANY H, ABOULGHAR M, MANSOUR R, SEROUR G. Models of cost-effectiveness of recombinant FSH versus urinary FSH. Hum Reprod 2003; 18: 305-313.
10. HOOMANS EHM, ANDERSEN AN, LOFT A, LEERENTVELD RA, VAN KAMP AA, ZECH H. A prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing 150 IU recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (Puregon) and 225 IU highly purified urinary follicle stimulating hormone (Metrodin-HP) in a fixed dose regimen in women undergoing ovarian stimulation. Hum Reprod 1999; 14: 2442-2447.
11. DAYA S, GUNBY J. WITHDRAWN: Recombinant versus urinary follicle stimulating hormone for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; (3): CD002810.
12. BAKER VL, FUYIMOTO VY, KETTEL LM, ADAMSON GD, HOEHLER F, JONES CE, SOULES MR. Clinical efficacy of highly purified urinary FSH vs recombinant FSH in volunteers undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a randomized, multicenter, investigator-blind trial. Fertil Steril 2008; 91: 1005-1011.
13. BARUFFI RL, MAURI AL, PETERSEN CG, FELIPE V, MARTINS AM, CORNICELLI J, CAVAGNA M, OLIVEIRA JB, FRANCO JG Jr. Recombinant LH supplementation to recombinant FSH during induced ovarian stimulation in the GnRH-antagonist protocol: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online 2007; 14: 14-25.
14. NICE CLINICAL GUIDELINES. Fertility assessment and treatment for people with fertility problems. RCOG press, February 2004.
15. BORINI A, SCIAJNO R, BIANCHI V, SERENI E, FLAMIGNI C, COTICCHIO G. Clinical outcome of oocyte cryopreservation after slow cooling with a protocol utilizing a high sucrose concentration. Hum Reprod 2006; 21: 512-517.
16. GERLI S, PERINO M, ABATE A, COSTABILE L, GHOLAMI H, VITIELLO L. Ovarian stimulation using a new highly purified urinary FSH: a prospective randomized clinical study. Clin Exp Obstet Gynaecol 1999; 26: 93-94.
17. FILICORI M, COGNIGNI GE, TARABORRELLI S, SPETTOLI D, CIAMPAGLIA W, TABARELLI DE FATIS C, POCOGNOLI P, CANTELLI B, BOSCHI S. Luteinizing hormone activity in menotropins optimizes folliculogenesis and treatment in controlled ovarian stimulation. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2001; 86: 337-343.
18. GORDON UD, HARRISON RF, FAWZY M, HENNELLY B, GORDON AC. A randomized prospective assessor-blind evaluation of luteinizing hormone dosage and in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril 2001; 75: 324-331.
19. ALVIGGI C, CLARIZIA R, MOLLO A, RANIERI A, DE PLACIDO G. Outlook: who needs LH in ovarian stimulation? Reprod Biomed Online 2006; 12: 599-607.
20. DHILLON S, KEATING GM. Lutropin alfa. Drugs 2008; 68: 1529-1540.
21. GLEICHER N, KARANDE V. Generic human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) in place of more costly follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) for routine ovulation induction. J Assist Reprod Genet 2000; 17: 489-495.
22. OLA B, AFNAN M, SHARIF K, HAMMADIEH N, PAPAIOANNOU S, COOMARASAMY A. Cost-effectiveness of recombinant versus urinary follicle stimulating hormone; whose point of view? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2001; 80: 1141-1142.
23. SILVERBERG K, DAYA S, AURAY JP, DURU G, LEDGER W, WIKLAND M, BOUZAYEN R, O'BRIEN M, FALK B, BERESNIAK A. Analysis of the cost effectiveness of recombinant versus urinary follicle-stimulating hormone in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection programs in the United States. Fertil Steril 2002; 77: 107-113.
24. 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; 83: 573-578.
25. 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.
26. SCHWARTZ D, MAYAUX MJ. Female fecundity as a function of age: results of artificial insemination in 2193 nulliparous women with azoospermic husbands. Federation CECOS. N Engl J Med 1982; 18: 404-406.
27. KLIPSTEIN S, REGAN M, RYLEY DA, GOLDMAN MB, ALPER MM, REINDOLLAR RH. One last chance for pregnancy: a review of 2,705 in vitro fertilization cycles initiated in women age 40 years and above. Fertil Steril 2005; 84: 435-445.
28. SHARIF K, ELGENDY M, LASHEN H, AFNAN M. Age and basal follicle stimulating hormone as predictors of in vitro fertilisation outcome. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998; 105: 107-112.