Human Reproduction, Vol. 15, No. 2, 239-244,
February 2000
© 2000 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology
Recombinant follicle stimulating hormone in in-vitro fertilization treatment—clinical experience with follitropin alpha and follitropin beta
Reproductive Medical Centre, Department of Women and Child Health, Division of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Karolinska Hospital, S 171 76 Stockholm, Sweden
The objective of this prospective study was to compare the outcome of ovarian hyperstimulation for in-vitro fertilization (IVF) using two different preparations of recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (FSH). The study was based on 296 consecutive IVF cycles in 1997, 199 performed using follitropin alpha (Gonal-F) and 97 performed using follitropin beta (Puregon). Outcome was compared regarding pregnancy rate, oestradiol and progesterone response, endometrial thickness, follicle number, number of retrieved oocytes, fertilized oocytes, sperm count and sperm motility. There was no significant difference in outcome of stimulation. Clinical pregnancy rate was similar, 29.1% for Gonal-F and 28.1% for Puregon. There was no difference in endometrial response, oestradiol response, number of smaller (12–15 mm) or larger (>15 mm) follicles, number of oocytes retrieved, fertilized, divided and replaced, in sperm counts or in sperm progressive motility. There was a lower follicle number in the Puregon group, but not statistically significant. The serum progesterone concentrations on the day of oocyte retrieval, however, were significantly lower in the Puregon group. In conclusion, it was not possible to find significant differences in the IVF programme with regard to stimulation outcome between Gonal-F and Puregon. The results of this study indicate that Gonal-F and Puregon may be equally suitable for use in ovarian stimulation for IVF.
Key words: FSH/IVF/oestradiol/ovary/progesterone
1 To whom correspondence should be addressed
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  A. Demirol and T. Gurgan Comparison of different gonadotrophin preparations in intrauterine insemination cycles for the treatment of unexplained infertility: a prospective, randomized study Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2007; 22(1): 97 - 100. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Platteau, E. Laurent, C. Albano, K. Osmanagaoglu, V. Vernaeve, H. Tournaye, M. Camus, A. Van Steirteghem, and P. Devroey An open, randomized single-centre study to compare the efficacy and convenience of follitropin {beta} administered by a pen device with follitropin {alpha} administered by a conventional syringe in women undergoing ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI Hum. Reprod., June 1, 2003; 18(6): 1200 - 1204. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Al-Inany, M. Aboulghar, R. Mansour, and G. Serour Meta-analysis of recombinant versus urinary-derived FSH: an update Hum. Reprod., February 1, 2003; 18(2): 305 - 313. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Harlin, A. Aanesen, G. Csemiczky, H. Wramsby, and G. Fried Delivery rates following IVF treatment, using two recombinant FSH preparations for ovarian stimulation Hum. Reprod., February 1, 2002; 17(2): 304 - 309. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. T. Baird Is there a place for different isoforms of FSH in clinical medicine?: IV. The clinician's point of view Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2001; 16(7): 1316 - 1318. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. J. Out, S. Daya, and J. Gunby Meta analysis on rFSH versus uFSH Hum. Reprod., March 1, 2001; 16(3): 593 - 595. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|