Recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone versus human menopausal gonadotropin in the late follicular phase during ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization

Commenges-Ducos, M.; Piault, Stéphanie; Papaxanthos, Aline; Ribes, Claude; Dallay, D.; Commenges, Daniel

doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(02)03372-1

Cited by 12 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, some practitioners believe that LH should be used in all women because it increases the ovarian response to FSH, reducing the dosage needed and the length of stimulation (10,(14)(15)(16)(17). In our study, we also saw a trend toward decrease in the days of stimulation with recombinant FSH and in the total dose of recombinant FSH in the group who received recombinant FSH and LH (group B) and recombinant FSH and recombinant hCG (group C), compared with the group who received only recombinant FSH (group A).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical effects of ovulation induction with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone supplemented with recombinant luteinizing hormone or low-dose recombinant human chorionic gonadotropin in the midfollicular phase in microdose cycles in poor responders

Berkkanoğlu

Işıkoğlu

Aydin

et al. 2007

Fertility and Sterility

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical effects of ovulation induction with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone supplemented with recombinant luteinizing hormone or low-dose recombinant human chorionic gonadotropin in the midfollicular phase in microdose cycles in poor responders

Berkkanoğlu

Işıkoğlu

Aydin

et al. 2007

Fertility and Sterility

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The second hypothesis is that LH should be used in all women because it increases the ovarian response to FSH, reducing the dose and length of stimulation and hence reducing the total costs while maintaining a similar (31,32) or even higher (33) efficacy compared with FSH alone.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exogenous luteinizing hormone in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for assisted reproduction techniques

Ferraretti¹,

Gianaroli²,

Magli³

et al. 2004

Fertility and Sterility

157

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Of the 17 trails identified, nine were excluded for the following reasons: rFSH versus combined rFSH and hMG [16][17][18]; very small trial (13 participants) with unclear data and the authors did not respond despite repeated contact [19]; insufficient information with no response from the authors [20]; unclear data (see below) [21]; quasi-randomized trial, randomized subjects by alternating weeks [22]; retrospective study [23]; and not an RCT [24].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ovulation induction in the new millennium: Recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone versus human menopausal gonadotropin

Al-Inany

Aboulghar

Mansour

et al. 2005

Gynecological Endocrinology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The renewed interest in luteinizing hormone (LH), together with limited and decreasing health resources, make essential the comparison of high-cost, recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) preparations (devoid of LH) and human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) in terms of clinical efficacy. All published, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing rFSH versus hMG under different protocols of stimulation were examined. Eight true RCTs were included in this meta-analysis, recruiting 2031 participants. Data for ongoing pregnancy/live birth rate, clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, multiple pregnancy rate and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) were extracted, and odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated with the use of a fixed-effects model. Data for the meta-analysis were combined using RevMan software (using the Mantel-Haenszel method). Pooling the results of these RCTs showed no significant difference between rFSH and hMG regarding the different outcomes: ongoing pregnancy/live birth rate, OR 1.18 (95% CI 0.93-1.50); clinical pregnancy rate, OR 1.2 (95% CI 0.99-1.47), miscarriage rate, OR 1.2 (95% CI 0.70-2.16); multiple pregnancy rate, OR 1.35 (95% CI 0.96-1.90); incidence of moderate/severe OHSS, OR 1.79 (95% CI 0.74-4.33). However, there was significant reduction in the amount of gonadotropins in favor of hMG over rFSH. There was no significant heterogeneity of treatment effect across the trials. In conclusion, there is no clinically significant difference between hMG and rFSH in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Decision-makers should establish their choice of one drug over the other based on the most up-to-date evidence available.

show abstract

Recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone versus human menopausal gonadotropin in the late follicular phase during ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization

Cited by 12 publications

References 27 publications

Clinical effects of ovulation induction with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone supplemented with recombinant luteinizing hormone or low-dose recombinant human chorionic gonadotropin in the midfollicular phase in microdose cycles in poor responders

Clinical effects of ovulation induction with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone supplemented with recombinant luteinizing hormone or low-dose recombinant human chorionic gonadotropin in the midfollicular phase in microdose cycles in poor responders

Exogenous luteinizing hormone in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for assisted reproduction techniques

Ovulation induction in the new millennium: Recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone versus human menopausal gonadotropin

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About