Clinical comparison of ovarian stimulation and luteal support agents in patients undergoing GnRH antagonist IVF cycles

Journal of Reproductive Medicine

Volumn 58, Issue 3-4, 2013, Pages 153-160

  Miller, Charles E ^a,b,c,d,e,f   Zbella, Edward ^a,b,c,d,e,f   Webster, Bobby W ^a,b,c,d,e,f   Doody, Kevin J ^a,b,c,d,e,f   Bush, Mark R ^a,b,c,d,e,f   Collins, Michael G ^a,b,c,d,e,f  

^a IVF Institute   (United States)

^b Women's Medical Research Group   (United States)

^c A Woman's Center for Reproductive Medicine   (United States)

^d Center for Assisted Reproduction   (United States)

^e Conceptions Reproductive Associates of Colorado ^*  (United States)

^f Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc USA   (United States)

Author keywords

Assisted reproductive techniques; GnRH; Gonadotropins, human menopausal; Human follicle stimulating hormone; Progesterone

Indexed keywords

CHORIONIC GONADOTROPIN; ESTRADIOL; GANIRELIX; GONADORELIN ANTAGONIST; HUMAN MENOPAUSAL GONADOTROPIN; PROGESTERONE; RECOMBINANT FOLLITROPIN;

ABDOMINAL DISTENSION; ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG TOLERABILITY; FEMALE; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; HUMAN; INFERTILITY THERAPY; LUTEAL PHASE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NAUSEA; OVARY HYPERSTIMULATION; OVARY STIMULATION; PHASE 4 CLINICAL TRIAL; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PREGNANCY RATE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STIMULATION; UTERINE SPASM; VOMITING;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CORPUS LUTEUM MAINTENANCE; FEMALE; FERTILITY AGENTS, FEMALE; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; FOLLICLE STIMULATING HORMONE; GONADOTROPIN-RELEASING HORMONE; HUMANS; INFERTILITY, FEMALE; MENOTROPINS; OVULATION INDUCTION; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY RATE; PROGESTERONE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84876428239     PISSN: 00247758     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Al-Inany HG, Abou-Setta AM, Aboulghar MA, et al: 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
2. Jee BC, Suh CS, Kim YB, et al: Clinical efficacy of highly purified hMG versus recombinant FSH in IVF/ICSI cycles: A meta-analysis. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2010;70:132-137
3. Al-Inany HG, Youssef MA, Aboulghar M, et al: Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted reproductive technology (review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;5:CD001750
4. Reh A, Krey L, Noyes N: Are gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists losing popularity? Current trends at a large fertility center. Fertil Steril 2010;93:101-108
5. Fatemi HM, Popovic-Todorovic B, Papanikolaou E, et al: An update of luteal phase support in stimulated IVF cycles. Hum Reprod Update 2007;13:581-590
6. Hayden C: GnRH analogues: Applications in assisted reproductive techniques. Eur J Endocrinol 2008;159(Suppl 1):S17-S25
7. Check JH: Luteal phase support in assisted reproductive technology treatment: Focus on EndometrinR (progesterone) vaginal insert. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2009;5:403-407
8. Bulletti C, de Ziegler D, Flamigni C, et al: Targeted drug delivery in gynaecology: The first uterine pass effect. Hum Reprod 1997;12:1073-1079
9. Mahaguna V, McDermott JM, Zhang F, et al: Investigation of product quality between extemporaneously compounded progesterone vaginal suppositories and an approved progesterone vaginal gel. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 2004;30:1069-1078
10. Doody KJ, Schnell VL, Foulk RA, et al: Endometrin for luteal phase support in a randomized, controlled, open-label, prospective in-vitro fertilization trial using a combination of Menopur and Bravelle for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Fertil Steril 2009;91:1012-1017
11. Lehert P, Schertz JC, Ezcurra D: 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. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2010; 8:112
12. van Wely M, Kwan I, Burt AL, et al: Recombinant versus urinary gonadotrophin for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;(2):CD005354
13. Bosch E, Vidal C, Labarta E, et al: Highly purified hMG versus recombinant FSH in ovarian hyperstimulation with GnRH antagonists: A randomized study. Hum Reprod 2008; 23:2346-2351
14. Andersen AN, Devroey P, Arce JC; MERIT Group: 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
15. Requena A, Landeras JL, Martinez-Navarro L, et al: Could the addition of hp-hMG and GnRH antagonists modulate the response in IVF-ICSI cycles? Hum Fertil (Camb) 2010;13: 41-51
16. Ziebe S, Lundin K, Janssens R, et al: Influence of ovarian stimulation with HP-hMG or recombinant FSH on embryo quality parameters in patients undergoing IVF. Hum Reprod 2007;22:2404-2413
17. 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
18. Bosch E, Labarta E, Crespo J, et al: Circulating progesterone levels and ongoing pregnancy rates in controlled ovarian stimulation cycles for in vitro fertilization: Analysis of over 4000 cycles. Hum Reprod 2010;25:2092-2100
19. Land JA, Evers JL: Risks and complications in assisted reproduction techniques: Report of an ESHRE consensus meeting. Hum Reprod 2003;18:455-457
20. Van Heesch MMJ, Gonsel GJ, Dumoulin JCM, et al: Long term costs and effects of reducing the number of twin pregnancies in IVF by single embryo transfer: The TwinSing study. BMC Pediatrics 2010;10:75
21. Wolfenson C, Groisman J, Couto AS, et al: Batch-to-batch consistency of human-derived gonadotrophin preparations compared with recombinant preparations. Reprod Biomed Online 2005;10:442
22. Beltsos A, Robinson M, Martin-Johnson MK, et al: Serum progesterone levels with Endometrin compared to progesterone in oil and associated pregnancy outcomes in a large IVF center. Fertil Steril 2008;90(Suppl):S366
23. Khan N, Richter KS, Newsome TL, et al: Matched-samples comparison of intramuscular versus vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2009;91:2445-2450
24. Mitwally MF, Diamond MP, Abuzeid M: Vaginal micronized progesterone versus intramuscular progesterone for luteal support in women undergoing in vitro fertilizationembryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2010;93:554-569
25. 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
26. Trew GH, Brown AP, Gillard S, et al: In vitro fertilisation with recombinant follicle stimulating hormone requires less IU usage compared with highly purified human menopausal gonadotrophin: Results from a European retrospective observational chart review. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2010;8:137
27. Sagnella F, Moro F, Lanzone A, et al: A prospective randomized noninferiority study comparing recombinant FSH and highly purified menotropin in intrauterine insemination cycles in couples with unexplained infertility and/or mildmoderate male factor. Fertil Steril 2011;95:689-694