BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to determine if the recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) is more effective than human menopausal gonadotrophin (hMG) in IVF poor responders. MATERIAL/ METHODS: A prospective comparative study over a 2-year period. The setting was the Tertiary IVF Center, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center. A total of 150 patients were selected from 277 patients with poor response in previous hMG-stimulated cycles who were willing to undergo another cycle of treatment. Seventy-five patients stimulated with rFSH were compared with 75 control subjects (matched for age, early follicular phase FSH, and body mass index) stimulated with urinary hMG. The number of follicles, number of oocytes retrieved, cycle cancellations, and pregnancy rates were the main outcome measures. RESULTS: There were no statistical differences in numbers of follicles (6.2 versus 5.7; p=0.97), oocytes recovered (4 versus 3.3; p=0.15), cycle characteristics, or pregnancy rates between hMG- and rFSH-stimulated cycles (p=0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) has no advantage over urinary human menopausal gonadotrophin (hMG) on ovarian performance or the outcome of IVF-ET in poor responders' IVF cycles.
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to determine if the recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) is more effective than human menopausal gonadotrophin (hMG) in IVF poor responders. MATERIAL/ METHODS: A prospective comparative study over a 2-year period. The setting was the Tertiary IVF Center, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center. A total of 150 patients were selected from 277 patients with poor response in previous hMG-stimulated cycles who were willing to undergo another cycle of treatment. Seventy-five patients stimulated with rFSH were compared with 75 control subjects (matched for age, early follicular phase FSH, and body mass index) stimulated with urinary hMG. The number of follicles, number of oocytes retrieved, cycle cancellations, and pregnancy rates were the main outcome measures. RESULTS: There were no statistical differences in numbers of follicles (6.2 versus 5.7; p=0.97), oocytes recovered (4 versus 3.3; p=0.15), cycle characteristics, or pregnancy rates between hMG- and rFSH-stimulated cycles (p=0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) has no advantage over urinary human menopausal gonadotrophin (hMG) on ovarian performance or the outcome of IVF-ET in poor responders' IVF cycles.