BACKGROUND:Highly purified hMG (hp-hMG) has recently shown better cycle outcome than the recombinant FSH (rFSH) when compared in GnRH agonist long protocol cycles. However, they have not yet been compared in GnRH antagonist cycles. METHODS: A RCT comparing the ongoing pregnancy rate (primary end-point) in 280 patients undergoing IVF/ICSI after stimulation with hp-hMG or rFSH controlled with a GnRH antagonist. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between hp-hMG and rFSH in terms of the ongoing pregnancy rate per started cycle (35.0 versus 32.1%, respectively; P = 0.61); relative risk: 1.09 (95% confidence interval: 0.78-1.51; risk difference: 2.9%). No differences were observed for implantation, clinical pregnancy and pregnancy loss rates. More oocytes were obtained from patients receiving rFSH then hMG (14.4 +/- 8.1 versus 11.3 +/- 6.0, respectively; P = 0.001). Estradiol was higher at the end of stimulation in the hp-hMG group (P = 0.02), whereas progesterone was higher in patients stimulated with rFSH (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A similar outcome was observed for hp-hMG and rFSH when used for stimulation in GnRH antagonist cycles. However, some differences were found in ovarian response in terms of oocyte yield and hormonal profile. Clinical Trials.gov TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00669786.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Highly purified hMG (hp-hMG) has recently shown better cycle outcome than the recombinant FSH (rFSH) when compared in GnRH agonist long protocol cycles. However, they have not yet been compared in GnRH antagonist cycles. METHODS: A RCT comparing the ongoing pregnancy rate (primary end-point) in 280 patients undergoing IVF/ICSI after stimulation with hp-hMG or rFSH controlled with a GnRH antagonist. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between hp-hMG and rFSH in terms of the ongoing pregnancy rate per started cycle (35.0 versus 32.1%, respectively; P = 0.61); relative risk: 1.09 (95% confidence interval: 0.78-1.51; risk difference: 2.9%). No differences were observed for implantation, clinical pregnancy and pregnancy loss rates. More oocytes were obtained from patients receiving rFSH then hMG (14.4 +/- 8.1 versus 11.3 +/- 6.0, respectively; P = 0.001). Estradiol was higher at the end of stimulation in the hp-hMG group (P = 0.02), whereas progesterone was higher in patients stimulated with rFSH (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A similar outcome was observed for hp-hMG and rFSH when used for stimulation in GnRH antagonist cycles. However, some differences were found in ovarian response in terms of oocyte yield and hormonal profile. Clinical Trials.gov TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00669786.
Authors: Jared C Robins; Andrew F Khair; Eric A Widra; Michael M Alper; Winnie W Nelson; Eric D Foster; Anshul Sinha; Masakazu Ando; Patrick W Heiser; Gaurang S Daftary Journal: F S Rep Date: 2020-11-10
Authors: P E Levi Setti; C Alviggi; G L Colombo; C Pisanelli; C Ripellino; S Longobardi; P L Canonico; G De Placido Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2014-12-06 Impact factor: 4.256