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

Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology

Volumn 8, Issue , 2010, Pages

  Lehert, Philippe ^a   Schertz, Joan C ^b,c   Ezcurra, Diego ^c,d  

^a Facultes Universitaires Catholiques de Mons   (Belgium)

^b MERCK KGAA   (Germany)

^c One Technology Place ^*  (Switzerland)

^d Merck Serono GmbH   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN MENOPAUSAL GONADOTROPIN; RECOMBINANT FOLLITROPIN; FERTILITY PROMOTING AGENT; FOLLITROPIN; RECOMBINANT PROTEIN;

AGE DISTRIBUTION; BODY MASS; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG SENSITIVITY; ENDOMETRIOSIS; FEMALE; FEMALE INFERTILITY; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; HUMAN; INTRACYTOPLASMIC SPERM INJECTION; META ANALYSIS; OOCYTE RETRIEVAL; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; OVARY HYPERSTIMULATION; OVARY POLYCYSTIC DISEASE; PREGNANCY RATE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REVIEW; RISK FACTOR; SYSTEMATIC ERROR; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; UTERINE TUBE DISEASE; CELL COUNT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CYTOLOGY; DOSE RESPONSE; DRUG EFFECT; INFERTILITY; INFERTILITY THERAPY; ISOLATION AND PURIFICATION; MENSTRUAL CYCLE; METHODOLOGY; OOCYTE; OVULATION INDUCTION; PHYSIOLOGY; PREGNANCY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CELL COUNT; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; FEMALE; FERTILITY AGENTS, FEMALE; FOLLICLE STIMULATING HORMONE, HUMAN; HUMANS; INFERTILITY; MENOTROPINS; MENSTRUAL CYCLE; OOCYTES; OVULATION INDUCTION; PREGNANCY; RECOMBINANT PROTEINS; REPRODUCTIVE TECHNIQUES, ASSISTED; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 77956605204     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14777827     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1477-7827-8-112     Document Type: Review

References (47)

1. Smitz J, Andersen AN, Devroey P, Arce JC, . MERIT Group Endocrine profile in serum and follicular fluid differs after ovarian stimulation with HP-hMG or recombinant FSH in IVF patients. Hum Reprod 2007, 22:676-687. 10.1093/humrep/del445, 17110397, MERIT Group.
2. Ziebe S, Lundin K, Janssens R, Helmgaard L, Arce JC, . MERIT (Menotrophin vs Recombinant FSH in vitro Fertilisation Trial) Group Influence of ovarian stimulation with HP-hMG or recombinant FSH on embryo quality parameters in patients undergoing IVF. Hum Reprod 2007, 22:2404-2413. 10.1093/humrep/dem221, 17640944, MERIT (Menotrophin vs Recombinant FSH in vitro Fertilisation Trial) Group.
3. 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 HP) in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques including intracytoplasmic sperm injection. The French Multicentre Trialists. Hum Reprod 2000, 15:520-525. 10.1093/humrep/15.3.520, 10686190.
4. Schats R, Sutter PD, Bassil S, Kremer JA, Tournaye H, Donnez J. Ovarian stimulation during assisted reproduction treatment: a comparison of recombinant and highly purified urinary human FSH. On behalf of The Feronia and Apis study group. Hum Reprod 2000, 15:1691-1697. 10.1093/humrep/15.8.1691, 10920087.
5. Andersen AN, Devroey P, Arce JC. Clinical outcome following stimulation with highly purified hMG or recombinant FSH in patients undergoing IVF: a randomized assessor-blind controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2006, 21:3217-3227. 10.1093/humrep/del284, 16873892.
6. Bals-Pratsch M, Buhler K, Krussel J, Wendelken M, Dahncke W, Kupka MS. Extended Analyses of the German IVF Registry (D·I·R): Andrological Aspects, Medical-Economical Assumptions Related to the Shift From IVF to ICSI and Stimulation with Gonadotropins. J Reproduktionsmed Endokrinol 2010, 7:1-5.
7. Harrison S, Wolf T, Abuzeid MI. Administration of recombinant follicle stimulating hormone in a woman with allergic reaction to menotropin: a case report. Gynecol Endocrinol 2000, 14:149-152. 10.3109/09513590009167674, 10923273.
8. Lathi RB, Milki AA. Recombinant gonadotropins. Current Womens Health Rep 2001, 1:157-163.
9. Bassett R, Lispi M, Ceccarelli D, Grimaldi L, Mancinelli M, Martelli F, Van Dorsselaer A. Analytical identification of additional impurities in urinary-derived gonadotrophins. Reprod Biomed Online 2009, 19:300-313. 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60163-0, 19778474.
10. Filicori M, Cognigni GE. Efficiency and efficacy of exogenous gonadotrophins containing LH activity. Reprod Biomed Online 2003, 7:254-255. 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)61761-0, 14567902.
11. Balasch J. Reply: exogenous LH is not needed in down-regulated patients. Reprod Biomed Online 2003, 7:255-257.
12. Humaidan P. To add or not to add LH: comments on a recent commentary. Reprod Biomed Online 2006, 12:284-285. 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60998-4, 16569311.
13. Al-Inany H, Aboulghar M, Mansour R, Serour G. Meta-analysis of recombinant versus urinary-derived FSH: an update. Hum Reprod 2003, 18:305-313. 10.1093/humrep/deg088, 12571166.
14. The European and Israeli Study Group on highly purified menotropin versus recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone Efficacy and safety of highly purified menotropin versus recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic injection cycles: a randomized, comparative trial. Fertil Steril 2002, 78:520-528. 10.1016/S0015-0282(02)03250-8, 12215327, The European and Israeli Study Group on highly purified menotropin versus recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone.
15. Gordon UD, Harrison RF, Fawzy H, 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. 10.1016/S0015-0282(00)01701-5, 11172834.
16. Ng EH, Lau EY, Yeung WS, Ho PC. HMG is as good as recombinant human FSH in terms of oocyte and embryo quality: a prospective randomized trial. Hum Reprod 2001, 16:319-325. 10.1093/humrep/16.2.319, 11157827.
17. Westergaard LG, Erb K, Laursen SB, Rex S, Rasmussen PE. Human menopausal gonadotropin versus recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone in normogonadotropic women down-regulated with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist who were undergoing in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a prospective randomized study. Fertil Steril 2001, 76:543-549. 10.1016/S0015-0282(01)01973-2, 11532479.
18. Westergaard LW, Bossuyt PMM, Van der Veen F, van Wely M. Human menopausal gonadotropin versus recombinant follicle stimulation hormone for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003, 1:CD003973.
19. Jansen CA, van Os HC, Out HJ, Coelingh Bennink HJ. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (Puregon) and human menopausal gonadotrophin (Humegon) in non-down-regulated in-vitro fertilization patients. Hum Reprod 1998, 13:2995-2999. 10.1093/humrep/13.11.2995, 9853844.
20. Kornilov NV, Shlykova SA, Loginova JA, Tomas C, Ashorn RG. Comparison of four different gonadotropins for ovarian stimulation in IVF treatment. 11th World Congress on In Vitro Fertilization and Human Genetics 1999, 379-383. Bologna, Italy: Monduzzi.
21. Serhal P, Phopong P, Ranieri DM. Comparison between human menopausal gonadotrophin and recombinant FSH for ovarian stimulation in patients undergoing in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 2000, 15:143.
22. Strehler E, Abr M, El-Danasouri I, De Santo M, Sterzik K. Impact of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone and human menopausal gonadotropins on in vitro fertilization outcomes. Fertil Steril 2001, 75:332-336. 10.1016/S0015-0282(00)01696-4, 11172835.
23. Al-Inany HG, Aboulghar MA, Mansour RT, Serour GI. Ovulation induction in the new millennium: recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone versus human menopausal gonadotropin. Gynecol Endocrinol 2005, 20:161-169. 10.1080/09513590400027232, 16019356.
24. Balasch J, Penarrubia J, Fabregues F, Vidal E, Casamitjana R, Manau D, Carmona F, Creus M, Vanrell JA. Ovarian responses to recombinant FSH or hMG in normogronadotrophic women following pituitary desensitization by a depot GnRH agonist for assisted reproduction. Reprod Biomed Online 2003, 7:35-42. 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)61726-9, 12930572.
25. Kilani Z, Dakkak A, Ghunaim S, Cognigni GE, Tabarelli C, Parmegiani L, Filicori M. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing highly purified hMG with recombinant FSH in women undergoing ICSI: ovarian response and clinical outcomes. Hum Reprod 2003, 18:1194-1199. 10.1093/humrep/deg252, 12773445.
26. Al-Inany HG, Abou-Setta AM, Aboulghar MA, Mansour RT, Serour GI. Efficacy and safety of human menopausal gonadotrophins versus recombinant FSH: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online 2008, 16:81-88. 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60559-7, 18252052.
27. Bosch E, Vidal C, Labarta E, Simon C, Remohi J, Pellicer A. Highly purified HMG versus recombinant FSH in ovarian hyperstimulation with GnRH antagonists - a randomized study. Hum Reprod 2008, 23:2346-2351. 10.1093/humrep/den220, 18583332.
28. Hompes PG, Broekmans FJ, Hoozemans DA, Schats R, . for the 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. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.05.039, 17681325, for the FIRM Group.
29. Rashidi BH, Sarvi F, Tehrani ES, Zayeri F, Movahedin M, Khanafshar N. The effect of HMG and recombinant human FSH on oocyte quality: a randomized single-blind clinical trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2005, 120:190-194. 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2004.11.007, 15925050.
30. Coomarasamy A, Afnan M, Cheema D, van der Veen F, Bossuyt PMM, 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 2008, 23:310-315. 10.1093/humrep/dem305, 18056719.
31. Al-Inany HG, Abou-Setta AM, Aboulghar MA, Mansour RT, Serour GL. Highly purified hMG achieves better pregnancy rates in IVF cycles but not ICSI cycles compared with recombinant FSH: a meta-analysis. Gynecol Endocrinol 2009, 25:372-378. 10.1080/09513590802630120, 19340668.
32. Strowitzki T. By treatment protocols: differences in treatment outcomes after antagonist downregulation. 5th World Congress on Ovulation Induction. Rome, Italy, September 13-15, 2007
33. Alviggi C, Humaidan P, Howles CM, Tredway D, Hillier SG. Biological versus chronological ovarian age: implications for assisted reproductive technology. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2009, 7:101-113. 10.1186/1477-7827-7-101, 2764709, 19772632.
34. Ubaldi F, Rienzi L. Morphological selection of gametes. Placenta 2008, 29:S115-120.
35. Chalmers TC, Smith H, Blackburn B, Silverman B, Schroeder B, Reitman D, Ambroz A. A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Control Clin Trials 1981, 2:31-49. 10.1016/0197-2456(81)90056-8, 7261638.
36. Akobeng AK. Communicating the benefits and harms of treatments. Arch Dis Child 2008, 93:710-713. 10.1136/adc.2008.137083, 18456681.
37. Brockwell SE, Gordon IR. A comparison of statistical methods for meta analysis. Stat Med 2001, 20:825-840. 10.1002/sim.650, 11252006.
38. Howles CM, Saunders H, Alam V, Engrand P. Predictive factors and a corresponding treatment algorithm for controlled ovarian stimulation in patients treated with recombinant human follicle stimulation hormone (follitropin alfa) during assisted reproduction technology (ART) procedures. An analysis of 1378 patients. Curr Med Res Opin 2006, 22:907-918. 10.1185/030079906X104678, 16709312.
39. Lintsen AM, Eijkemans MJC, Hunault CC, Bouwmans CA, Hakkaart L, Habbema JD, Braat DD. Predicting ongoing pregnancy chances after IVF and ICSI: a national prospective study. Hum Reprod 2007, 22:2455-2462. 10.1093/humrep/dem183, 17636281.
40. Baker VL, Luke B, Brown MB, Alvero R, Frattarelli JL, Usadi R, Grainger DA, Armstrong AY. Multivariate analysis of factors affecting probability of pregnancy and live birth with in vitro fertilization: an analysis of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcomes Reporting System. Fertil Steril 2009,
41. Walter SD. Variation in baseline risk as an explanation of heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat Med 1997, 16:2883-2900. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19971230)16:24<2883::AID-SIM825>3.0.CO;2-B, 9483721.
42. Afnan M. Identifying real differences in live birth rates between hMG and rFSH in IVF. Reprod Biomed Online 2009, 18(Suppl 2):S25-30.
43. 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, 17:190-198. 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60194-0, 18681992.
44. Platteau P, Smitz J, Albano C, Sørensen P, Arce JC, Devroey P. Exogenous luteinizing hormone activity may influence the treatment outcome in in vitro fertilization but not in intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Fertil Steril 2004, 81:1401-1404. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2003.09.077, 15136112.
45. Loutradis D, Kallianidis K, Drakakis P, Milingos S, Kallipolitis G, Prevedourakis K, Michalas S. A prospective randomised study to evaluate the clinical efficacy of recFSH as compared to hMG-FD in IVF-ET [abstract]. Fertil Steril 1998, 70(Suppl 1):S432-433.
46. Duijkers IJ, Willemsen WN, Hollanders HM, Hamilton CJ, Thomas CM, Vemer HM. Follicular fluid hormone concentrations after ovarian stimulation using gonadotropin preparations with different FSH/LH ratios. II. Comparison of hMG and rFSH. Int J Fertil Womens Med 1997, 42:431-435.
47. Ruvolo G, Bosco L, Cittadini E. Ovarian stimulation protocol influences the apoptotic rate of human cumulus cells: a comparative study between recombinant and urinary human follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) [abstract]. Fertil Steril 2009, 92(Suppl):S242.