0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Required amount of rFSH, HP-hMG and HP-FSH to reach a live birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          STUDY QUESTION

          In women undergoing IVF or ICSI cycles, do recombinant gonadotrophins differ from urinary-derived highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin (HP-hMG) or highly purified follicle-stimulating hormone (HP-FSH) in the total amount of gonadotrophins required to reach a live birth?

          SUMMARY ANSWER

          The difference between recombinant and urinary-derived HP-hMG or HP-FSH in the required amount to reach a live birth in IVF/ICSI cycles appears small.

          WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

          At present, gynecologists can choose between recombinant FSH (rFSH), urinary-derived HP-hMG and HP-FSH. These products are equally effective and safe, but it is unknown how these gonadotrophins compare in terms of IU required to reach a live birth.

          STUDY DESIGN, SIZE AND DURATION

          We conducted a search in Medline, Embase and CINAHL up to July 2018. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared rFSH with HP-hMG or HP-FSH for ovarian stimulation in couples scheduled for IVF or ICSI treatment. From each randomized trial, we extracted the outcome data and information on participants, methods, interventions and funding.

          PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING AND METHODS

          Women undergoing ovarian stimulation with rFSH, HP-hMG or HP-FSH were included. We extracted data for the mean amount of gonadotrophins with SD, clinical pregnancy rate, live birth rate and cumulative live birth rate per woman from the included RCTs. We summarized these outcomes by calculating the individual and pooled mean difference (MD) or relative risk (RR) with 95% CI. We used the Review Manager software to perform the meta-analyses. We applied a random effect model to pool the data. We estimated the total amount of gonadotrophins used per extra live birth by STATA 14.2 and R software.

          MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

          A total of 28 studies with 7553 women were included in this review, of which 24 studies provided information on the total amount of gonadotrophins per woman who started an IVF/ICSI cycle. The total amount of gonadotrophins varied significantly between studies. The MDs in total amount were −37 IU (seven studies; N = 3220; 95% CI, −115 to 41; I 2 = 68%) for rFSH versus HP-hMG and −31 IU (17 studies; N = 3629; 95% CI, −290 to 228; I 2 = 97%) for rFSH versus HP-FSH. For rFSH versus HP-hMG, the RR for clinical pregnancy, live birth and cumulative live birth were 0.90 (95% CI, 0.81–1.00), 0.88 (95% CI, 0.78–0.99) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.80–1.04), respectively. For rFSH versus HP-FSH, the RR for clinical pregnancy and live birth were 1.03 (95% CI, 0.94–1.13) and 1.03 (95% CI, 0.90–1.18), respectively; the data on cumulative live birth rate were lacking. The estimated difference in mean gonadotrophin amount per extra live birth was 789 IU (95% CI, −9.5 to 1570) for rFSH versus HP-hMG and −365 IU (95% CI, −2675 to 1945) for rFSH versus HP-FSH.

          LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

          There was severe heterogeneity in the total amount of gonadotrophins between studies. A small fraction of women did not start gonadotrophin treatment; this was usually not accounted for in the provided mean amount of gonadotrophins per study and might have affected the averaged total amount of gonadotrophins but is unlikely to have affected the differences in the amount between rFSH and HP-hMG or HP-FSH.

          WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

          The differences in the required amount to reach a live birth between rFSH, HP-hMG and HP-FSH appear to be small. Decision-making should be based on convenience, availability, actual costs and patient preferences.

          STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

          The authors declare no conflict of interest. No external funding was either sought or obtained for this study.

          REGISTRATION NUMBER

          Prospero CRD42016038238

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The science behind 25 years of ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization.

          To allow selection of embryos for transfer after in vitro fertilization, ovarian stimulation is usually carried out with exogenous gonadotropins. To compensate for changes induced by stimulation, GnRH analog cotreatment, oral contraceptive pretreatment, late follicular phase human chorionic gonadotropin, and luteal phase progesterone supplementation are usually added. These approaches render ovarian stimulation complex and costly. The stimulation of multiple follicular development disrupts the physiology of follicular development, with consequences for the oocyte, embryo, and endometrium. In recent years, recombinant gonadotropin preparations have become available, and novel stimulation protocols with less detrimental effects have been developed. In this article, the scientific background to current approaches to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization is reviewed. After a brief discussion of the relevant aspect of ovarian physiology, the development, application, and consequences of ovarian stimulation strategies are reviewed in detail.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A randomized assessor-blind trial comparing highly purified hMG and recombinant FSH in a GnRH antagonist cycle with compulsory single-blastocyst transfer.

            To compare the efficacy and safety of highly purified menotropin (hphMG) and recombinant FSH (rFSH) for controlled ovarian stimulation in a GnRH antagonist cycle with compulsory single-blastocyst transfer. Randomized, open-label, assessor-blind, parallel groups, multicenter, noninferiority trial. Twenty-five infertility centers in seven countries. Seven hundred forty-nine women. Controlled ovarian stimulation with hphMG or rFSH in a GnRH antagonist cycle with compulsory single-blastocyst transfer on day 5 in one fresh or subsequent frozen blastocyst replacement in natural cycles initiated within 1 year of each patient's start of treatment. Ongoing pregnancy (primary end point) and live birth rates, as well as pharmacodynamic parameters. The ongoing pregnancy rate after a fresh cycle was 30% with hphMG versus 27% with rFSH for the per-protocol (PP) population and 29% versus 27% for the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Noninferiority of hphMG compared to rFSH was established. Considering frozen cycles initiated within 1 year, the cumulative live birth rate for a single stimulation cycle was 40% and 38% for women treated with hphMG and rFSH, respectively (both PP and ITT). Significant differences in pharmacodynamic end points were found between the two gonadotropin preparations. Highly purified hMG is at least as effective as rFSH in GnRH antagonist cycles with compulsory single-blastocyst transfer. NCT00884221. Copyright © 2012 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Recombinant versus urinary gonadotrophin for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology cycles.

              Several systematic reviews compared recombinant gonadotrophin with urinary gonadotrophins (HMG, purified FSH, highly purified FSH) for ovarian hyperstimulation in IVF and ICSI cycles and these reported conflicting results. Each of these reviews used different inclusion and exclusion criteria for trials. Our aim in producing this review is to bring together all randomised studies in this field under common inclusion criteria with consistent and valid statistical methods.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Hum Reprod Open
                Hum Reprod Open
                hropen
                Human Reproduction Open
                Oxford University Press
                2399-3529
                2019
                01 June 2019
                01 June 2019
                : 2019
                : 3
                : hoz008
                Affiliations
                [1]Academic Medical Center, Center for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                Author notes
                Correspondence address. Center for Reproductive Medicine, Q3-119 Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail: m.vanwely@ 123456amc.nl
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7983-1613
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8263-213X
                Article
                hoz008
                10.1093/hropen/hoz008
                6561325
                31206036
                c8cfbf0f-ccea-4ef3-b6ef-15ff9849fae7
                © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

                History
                : 14 August 2018
                : 7 February 2019
                : 27 February 2019
                Page count
                Pages: 12
                Categories
                Review

                pregnancy,gonadotrophins dosage,ivf,fsh,gonadotrophins,ovulation stimulation,icsi

                Comments

                Comment on this article