Human Reproduction, Vol. 15, No. 3, 520-525,
March 2000
© 2000 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology
A double-blind, randomized study to compare recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone (FSH; Gonal-F®) with highly purified urinary FSH (Metrodin® HP) in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques including intracytoplasmic sperm injection
This prospective, double-blind, randomized, multicentre study compared the efficacy and safety of recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone (r-hFSH; Gonal-F®) versus highly purified urinary FSH (u-hFSH HP; Metrodin® HP) in women undergoing ovarian stimulation for in-vitro fertilization, including intracytoplasmic sperm injection. A total of 278 patients began a long gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist protocol, then 139 received r-hFSH and 139 u-hFSH HP, 150 IU/day administered s.c., for the first 6 days of treatment. On day 7, the dose was adjusted, if necessary, according to ovarian response. Human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG, 10 000 IU, s.c.) was administered once there was more than one follicle 18 mm in diameter and two others 
16 mm. Oocyte retrieval was performed 36–38 h after HCG injection: 128 patients (92%) receiving r-hFSH and 113 (81%) receiving u-hFSH HP had at least one oocyte retrieved. Among patients receiving r-hFSH, there was a significantly higher mean (± SD) number of oocytes retrieved (11.0 ± 5.9 versus 8.8 ± 4.8 with u-hFSH HP; P = 0.002) and mean number of embryos obtained (5.1 ± 3.7 versus 3.5 ± 2.9 with u-hFSH HP; P = 0.0001). With r-hFSH, significantly fewer FSH treatment days (11.7 ± 1.9 versus 14.5 ± 3.3) and 75 IU ampoules (27.6 ± 10.2 versus 40.7 ± 13.6) were required than with u-hFSH HP (P = 0.0001). Embryo replacement on day 2–3 after oocyte retrieval resulted in 36 liveborn children in the Gonal-F® group and 33 in the Metrodin HP® group (not significant). There were seven cases (5.0%) of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in the r-hFSH group and three (2.2%), in the u-hFSH HP group (not significant). It is concluded that r-hFSH is more effective than u-hFSH in inducing multiple follicular development.
Key words: ICSI/IVF/multiple follicular development/r-hFSH/u-hFSH HP
* The French Multicentre Trialists: Pr R.Frydman, Hopital A. Beclère, Clamart; C.M.Howles, Ares Serono, Geneva, Switzerland; F.Truong, Serono, France, Boulogne; Dr F.Olivennes, Dr C.Righini, Hopital A. Beclère, Clamart; Dr Avril, Clinique St Antoine, Bois-Guillaume; Dr Camier, Centre Hospitalier–Maternité C. Desmoulins, Amiens; Dr Cornet, Clinique de la Dhuys, Bagnolet; Dr Carles, Hôpital de la Conception, Marseille; Dr Moreau, CMCO, Schiltigheim; Dr Ragage, Maternité Ste Croix, Metz; Dr Sage, Clinique Belledone, Grenoble, Dr Thébault, Hôpital Américain, Neuilly.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  C. Hayden GnRH analogues: applications in assisted reproductive techniques Eur. J. Endocrinol., December 1, 2008; 159(suppl_1): S17 - S25. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. Tarlatzis, E. Tavmergen, M. Szamatowicz, A. Barash, A. Amit, E. Levitas, and Z. Shoham The use of recombinant human LH (lutropin alfa) in the late stimulation phase of assisted reproduction cycles: a double-blind, randomized, prospective study Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2006; 21(1): 90 - 94. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F.-J. Huang, K.-C. Lan, F.-T. Kung, M.-Y. Tsai, C.-Y. Chang, H.-W. Huang, Y.-C. Lin, and S.-Y. Chang Human cumulus-free oocyte maturational profile and in vitro developmental potential after stimulation with recombinant versus urinary FSH Hum. Reprod., February 1, 2004; 19(2): 306 - 315. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S.J. Dyer Bye-bye urinary gonadotrophins?: The conflict between effective and affordable health care--a perspective from the developing world Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2002; 17(7): 1680 - 1683. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J.E.F. Zwart-van Rijkom, F.J. Broekmans, and H.G.M. Leufkens From HMG through purified urinary FSH preparations to recombinant FSH: a substitution study Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2002; 17(4): 857 - 865. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Daya, W. Ledger, J.P. Auray, G. Duru, K. Silverberg, M. Wikland, R. Bouzayen, C.M. Howles, and A. Beresniak Cost-effectiveness modelling of recombinant FSH versus urinary FSH in assisted reproduction techniques in the UK Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2001; 16(12): 2563 - 2569. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Lenton, A. Soltan, J. Hewitt, A. Thomson, W. Davies, N. Ashraf, V. Sharma, L. Jenner, W. Ledger, and E. McVeigh Induction of ovulation in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques: recombinant human FSH (follitropin alpha) versus highly purified urinary FSH (urofollitropin HP) Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2000; 15(5): 1021 - 1027. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|