Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (20)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Popovic-Todorovic, B.
Right arrow Articles by Andersen, A.N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Popovic-Todorovic, B.
Right arrow Articles by Andersen, A.N.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Human Reproduction, Vol. 18, No. 11, 2275-2282, November 2003
© 2003 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology

A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing an individual dose of recombinant FSH based on predictive factors versus a ‘standard’ dose of 150 IU/day in ‘standard’ patients undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment

B. Popovic-Todorovic1,3, A. Loft1, H.Ejdrup Bredkjæer2, S. Bangsbøll1, I.K. Nielsen2 and A.Nyboe Andersen1

1 The Fertility Clinic 4071, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen and 2 The Fertility Clinic, Hvidovre Hospital, Hvidovre, Denmark

3 To whom correspondence should be addressed at: The Fertility Clinic 4071, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. e-mail: drbiba{at}yahoo.com

BACKGROUND: The study aim was to compare the use of individual rFSH doses between 100 and 250 IU/day (calculated using the rFSH dose normogram) with a standard dose of rFSH of 150 IU/day. METHODS: This prospective randomized dual-centre clinical trial included 267 first IVF/ICSI cycles using the long agonist protocol in ‘standard’ patients. Following down-regulation, 262 patients were randomized using computer-generated lists using ‘clusters of 10’ into the individual dose (study) group (n = 131) or the standard dose (control) group (n = 131). RESULTS: In the study group, 101 patients (77.1%) had an appropriate response (defined as 5–14 oocytes), compared with 86 (65.6%) in the control group (P < 0.05). Fewer than five oocytes were retrieved in two patients (1.5%) in the study group, compared with 14 patients (10.7%) in the control group (P < 0.05). By comparison, >14 oocytes were retrieved from 27 patients (20.6%) in the study group and from 26 (19.8%) control patients (P = NS). Eighty-six per cent of the individual dose patients did not require any dose adjustment on day 8, compared with 45% of the standard dose patients (P < 0.01). The ongoing pregnancy rate per initiated cycle was 36.6% in the study group and 24.4% in the control group (P < 0.01). One patient (0.8%) in the study group, and four patients (3.1%) in the control group, were hospitalized due to ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: An individual dose regimen in a well-defined ‘standard’ patient population increased the proportion of appropriate ovarian responses and decreased the need for dose adjustments during controlled ovarian stimulation. A higher ongoing pregnancy rate was observed in the individual dose group.

Key words: individual rFSH dose normogram/IVF/ICSI patients/ovarian response/standard patients


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
T.E.M. Verhagen, D.J. Hendriks, L.F.J.M.M. Bancsi, B.W.J. Mol, and F.J.M. Broekmans
The accuracy of multivariate models predicting ovarian reserve and pregnancy after in vitro fertilization: a meta-analysis
Hum. Reprod. Update, March 1, 2008; 14(2): 95 - 100.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
B.C.J.M. Fauser, K. Diedrich, P. Devroey, and on behalf of the Evian Annual Reproduction (EVAR)
Predictors of ovarian response: progress towards individualized treatment in ovulation induction and ovarian stimulation
Hum. Reprod. Update, January 1, 2008; 14(1): 1 - 14.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
M.F.G. Verberg, M.J.C. Eijkemans, N.S. Macklon, E.M.E.W. Heijnen, B.C.J.M. Fauser, and F.J. Broekmans
Predictors of low response to mild ovarian stimulation initiated on cycle day 5 for IVF
Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2007; 22(7): 1919 - 1924.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
G. H. Trew
Comparing highly purified hMG and rFSH in patients undergoing IVF
Hum. Reprod., June 1, 2007; 22(6): 1797 - 1798.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
A. N. Andersen, P. Devroey, and J.-C. Arce
Reply: Comparing highly purified hMG and rFSH in patients undergoing IVF
Hum. Reprod., June 1, 2007; 22(6): 1798 - 1800.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
F.J. Broekmans, J. Kwee, D.J. Hendriks, B.W. Mol, and C.B. Lambalk
A systematic review of tests predicting ovarian reserve and IVF outcome
Hum. Reprod. Update, November 1, 2006; 12(6): 685 - 718.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.Home page
R. R. Greb, K. Grieshaber, J. Gromoll, B. Sonntag, E. Nieschlag, L. Kiesel, and M. Simoni
A Common Single Nucleotide Polymorphism in Exon 10 of the Human Follicle Stimulating Hormone Receptor Is a Major Determinant of Length and Hormonal Dynamics of the Menstrual Cycle
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., August 1, 2005; 90(8): 4866 - 4872.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
J.-C. Arce, A. Nyboe Andersen, and J. Collins
Resolving methodological and clinical issues in the design of efficacy trials in assisted reproductive technologies: a mini-review
Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2005; 20(7): 1757 - 1771.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.