Effectiveness of highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin vs. recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone in first-cycle in vitro fertilization-intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients. Highly purified hMG versus recombinant FSH in ovarian hyperstimulation with GnRH antagonists--a randomized study. Clinical outcome following stimulation with highly purified hMG or recombinant FSH in patients undergoing IVF: a randomized assessor-blind controlled trial. Good results of milder form of ovarian stimulation in an in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection program. Comparison of mild stimulation and conventional stimulation in ART outcome. A randomized prospective study of gonadotrophin with or without gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist for treatment of unexplained infertility. Comparison of short 7-day and prolonged treatment with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist desensitization for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Evaluation of ovulation induction protocols for poor responders undergoing assisted reproduction techniques. Impact of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone and human menopausal gonadotropins on in vitro fertilization outcome.
To compare the effectiveness of highly purified hMG with recombinant FSH (rFSH) in IVF-intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients who were treated with a GnRH agonist.
                An open-label, prospective, randomized comparison of fixed gonadotropin regimens.
                Eighteen Dutch IVF centers.
                Six hundred twenty-nine patients who were selected for IVF-intracytoplasmic sperm injection.
                Patients were randomized to receive either highly purified hMG or rFSH in a fixed dosage of 150 IU/d after GnRH-agonist suppression (long protocol).
                Ongoing pregnancy rate per started cycle. Difference between the two treatment groups was tested by using odds ratios, including the 95% confidence limits (intention-to-treat sample), and by using the Fisher's exact test (per-protocol sample).
                The ongoing pregnancy rates per started cycle were 26.3% and 25.2% for highly purified hMG and rFSH, respectively (no statistically significant difference). Treatment with highly purified hMG resulted in statistically significantly fewer oocytes (n = 7.8) than did treatment with rFSH (n = 10.6). There were no differences with respect to fertilization rates and implantation rates. Cycles with highly purified hMG were statistically significantly less often canceled as a result of ovarian hyperresponse (2.0% vs. 6.0% for highly purified hMG and rFSH, respectively).
                Compared with rFSH, highly purified hMG did not result in superiority in ongoing pregnancy rates in first-cycle IVF-intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients who were treated with a fixed dosage of 150 IU of gonadotropin per day. Compared with rFSH, treatment with highly purified hMG resulted in retrieval of fewer oocytes, a lower incidence of hyperresponse, and comparable pregnancy rates. 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.
                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.
                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).
                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. LH activity may influence treatment response and outcome in IVF cycles.
                A randomized, assessor-blind, multinational trial compared ongoing pregnancy rates (primary end-point) in 731 women undergoing IVF after stimulation with highly purified menotrophin (HP-hMG) (n = 363) or recombinant FSH (rFSH) (n = 368) following a long GnRH agonist protocol. Patients received identical pre- and post-randomization interventions. One or two embryos were transferred on day 3.
                More oocytes were retrieved (P < 0.001) after rFSH treatment (11.8) compared with HP-hMG treatment (10.0), but a higher proportion developed into top-quality embryos (P = 0.044) with HP-hMG (11.3%) than with rFSH (9.0%). At the end of stimulation, lower estradiol (E(2)) (P = 0.031) and higher progesterone (P < 0.001) levels were found with rFSH, even after adjusting for follicular response. The distribution of hypo-, iso- and hyper-echogenic endometrium showed a significant (P = 0.023) shift towards the hyperechogenic pattern after rFSH treatment. The ongoing pregnancy rate per cycle was 27% with HP-hMG and 22% with rFSH [odds ratio (95% confidence interval): 1.25 (0.89-1.75)].
                Superiority of HP-hMG over rFSH in ongoing pregnancy rate could not be concluded from this study, but non-inferiority was established. Pharmacodynamic differences in follicular development, oocyte/embryo quality, endocrine response and endometrial echogenicity exist between HP-hMG and rFSH preparations, which may be relevant for treatment outcome. In a prospective study, we compared two protocols of ovulation stimulation, the clomiphene citrate and human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) versus D-triptorelin, a long-acting gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist and hMG in 324 couples having their first in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) program, in terms of pregnancy rates and cost-effectiveness of drugs used. The GnRH agonist/hMG group was characterized by a greater mean number of ampoules of hMG used (31.7 versus 10.2), a larger number of oocytes collected (10.4 versus 4.2), and a larger number of embryos obtained (5.8 versus 2.9). With the policy of transferring only two of the best quality embryos, the mean number of embryos replaced were comparable (1.8 in clomiphene citrate/hMG and 1.9 in GnRH agonist/hMG group). The percentage of patients reaching embryo transfer was lower in the clomiphene citrate/hMG than in the GnRH agonist/hMG group (84.1% versus 93.1%, respectively). However, the combined results of the IVF and ICSI procedure in terms of pregnancy rate, both per patient and per embryo transfer were better, though not significantly in the clomiphene citrate/hMG than in GnRH agonist/hMG group (25.0% and 29.7% versus 23.7% and 25.5%, respectively). Similarly, the implantation rate was better (19.0% versus 13.5%, respectively). With the use of clomiphene citrate/hMG, a fivefold less costly drug regimen, we obtained pregnancy rates equivalent to those gained using GnRH agonist/hMG in our IVF/ICSI program. To provide a treatment for particular condition that is the most effective treatment with the least risk and cost for the patient we compared the efficacy of using clomiphene 100 mg + delayed low dose gonadotropin + flexible GnRH antagonist administration for ovarian stimulation protocol and GnRH agonist + gonadotropin for stimulation protocol in IVF outcome.
                Clinical outcome of 243 women with regularly menstruation who were candidate for IVF. They had undergone stimulation with GnRH agonist and gonadotropin (group A) or clomiphene citrate, gonadotropin and GnRH antagonist (group B). Main outcome was ongoing pregnancy.
                There were no significant difference in mean age, cause of infertility, basal FSH, BMI, duration of infertility, endometrial thickness on the day HCG administration in two groups. The number of recovered oocytes, obtained embryos, transferred embryos, peak of estradiol on the day HCG administration and OHSS were significantly higher in group A. Significantly more patients in control group had embryos for cryopreservation. There were no significant difference in clinical pregnancy rate and ongoing pregnancy rate between two groups.
                Clomiphene + delayed low dose gonadotropin + flexible GnRH - antagonist stimulation is an acceptable alternative protocol for IVF in patients with regularly menstruation. The use of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) in combination with human menopausal gonadotrophin (HMG) for ovulation induction has been advocated for the treatment, particularly by in-vitro fertilization (IVF) of various types of infertility. The present study was designed to compare the clinical efficacy of HMG alone with a short protocol of GnRHa/HMG for treatment of unexplained infertility. A total of 91 couples with unexplained infertility were randomly assigned to one of two treatments; either HMG with intra-uterine insemination (IUI) (45 patients, 62 cycles) or GnRHa/HMG with IUI (46 patients, 69 cycles) treatments. Progesterone concentrations on the day of human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) administration were significantly higher in HMG (1.5 +/- 0.9 ng/ml) versus GnRHa/HMG (0.8 +/- 0.6 ng/ml; P < 0.05) cycles. Furthermore, GnRHa suppressed the occurrences of premature luteinization (GnRHa/HMG 5.8% and HMG 24.2% respectively). However, there were no significant differences in HMG dose requirements, plasma oestradiol concentrations or follicular development on the day of HCG administration between the two groups. Nor were any significant differences found in the pregnancy rates between the two treatment protocols (GnRHa/HMG 13.0% and HMG 11.3% respectively). Our results suggest no beneficial effect of GnRHa/HMG compared to HMG alone for the treatment of unexplained infertility, based on pregnancy rates. To compare two treatment regimens associating a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) and human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH).
                A prospective randomized trial.
                The outpatient fertility clinic of a university tertiary care center, the Hôpital A. Béclère, Clamart, France.
                One hundred eighty-two in vitro fertilization (IVF) candidates undergoing new or repeat IVF cycles at Hôpital A. Béclère over a 4-month period.
                Group 1 (7-day protocol): A short-acting preparation of GnRH-a (Tripteriline 0.1) was administered daily for 7 days, starting on cycle day 2. Ovarian stimulation with hMG was started on cycle day 4. Group 2 (long protocol): A timed release preparation of GnRH-a (Tripteriline 3.75 mg) was administered on cycle day 2. Ovarian stimulation with hMG was started after documented ovarian suppression.
                Response to COH, pregnancy rate (PR), tolerance.
                In the 7-day protocol, the amount of hMG required was markedly lower at 24 +/- 7 than in the long protocol group requiring 42.5 +/- 9.75 vials (75 IU) (mean +/- SD). No elevation of plasma LH occurred in either group. The number of oocytes retrieved was 7.3 +/- 1 and 10.7 +/- 1.2 (mean +/- SD) in the 7-day and long protocols, respectively. Yet, the number of embryos obtained and the PRs were similar in the two treatment groups.
                We observed that in COH, GnRH-a treatment could be interrupted safely several days before human chorionic gonadotropin administration without risking a premature increase of plasma luteinizing hormone. Moreover, the number of embryos available for fresh transfer and the ongoing PRs were similar in the new 7-day and in the classic long GnRH-a/hMG protocols, despite the smaller number of oocytes suggesting a greater efficiency of the 7-day protocol. The peak estradiol level and the hMG requirement were also lower in the 7-day GnRH-a/hMG protocol. To compare 3 stimulation protocols in poor ovulation responders undergoing in-vitro fertilization (IVF).
                The study was a randomized, prospective clinical trial from June 2003 to July 2004, in Royan Institute, Tehran, Iran. One hundred and fifty-four patients, who had poor responses to ovulation induction in at least one previous IVF attempt, were randomly divided into 3 groups. In the first group, human menopausal gonadotropin (HMG) was administered from day 3 of the cycle at a dose rate of 150 IU/day. In the second group, gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist was started at a dose rate of 800 microg/day by nasal spray or 500 microg/day subcutaneously in the mid-luteal phase, followed by a standard HMG dose after pituitary down regulation was confirmed. In the third group, clomiphene at a dose rate of 100 mg/day was given from day 3 and HMG from day 6. Our main outcomes were number of mature oocytes, cancellation rate, number of HMG ampoules used and incidence premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surge.
                There was a high incidence of premature LH surge in all groups except in the GnRH group (p=0.0001) and there were significant differences between groups in HMG requirements (p=0.004). There were no significant differences between groups in number of mature oocytes recovered and cancellation rate.
                Results showed no advantage in the use of GnRH agonist compared to the older regimens of clomiphene plus HMG and HMG alone. The cancellation rate was similar for 3 protocols and HMG requirement was higher with the use of GnRH agonist. The treatment of poor responders in assisted reproductive technologies remains a challenge. To investigate possible differences between using recombinant FSH (rFSH) and hMG for ovarian stimulation in IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles.
                Parallel group design. Prospective, randomized clinical study.
                A tertiary care infertility clinic.
                A total of 578 patients of our IVF/ICSI routine were recruited.
                Treatment with hMG was used for 282 patients (282 cycles), whereas 296 patients (296 cycles) were treated with rFSH. The number of cycles leading to an embryo transfer were 248 and 259, respectively.
                Primary: clinical pregnancy rate. Secondary: treatment days, total dose of gonadotropin administered, number of oocytes retrieved, number of mature oocytes, and embryo quality.
                Of the cycles with embryo transfer, the pregnancy rates were 30.1% and 32.3% in the rFSH and the hMG groups, respectively. This difference is not statistically significant (P=0.798). Treatment with rFSH resulted in a significantly higher number of recovered oocytes compared with the hMG group but was also associated with a higher number of ampoules needed to reach the criterion for hCG administration. No significant differences were found with regard to the number of mature oocytes, the number of treatment days, and the embryo quality.
                In terms of the clinical pregnancy rate, no significant differences between the two stimulation regimens can be stated.
Although 14 RCTs were included in this review, few dealt with the same comparisons, all were small to moderate size and their methodological quality was generally poor. Any conclusions, therefore, remain tentative as they are based on a limited amount of data and will require further RCTs to substantiate them. In none of the comparisons was there a significant improvement in pregnancy rate but this may be due to the lack of power (i.e. insufficient patients randomised to demonstrate a significant difference between treatments). There was a trend towards better pregnancy rates with the addition of a GnRH-a to gonadotrophin stimulation and these interventions warrant further study. Despite theoretical advantages, urinary-derived FSH preparations did not improve pregnancy rates when compared to traditional and cheaper hMG preparations; their only demonstrable benefit was a reduced risk of OHSS in cycles when administered without the concomitant use of a GnRH-a. No conclusions can be drawn on miscarriage and multiple pregnancy rates due to insufficient reporting of these outcomes in the trials.