Skip Navigation


Hum. Reprod. Advance Access originally published online on June 25, 2008
Human Reproduction 2008 23(10):2346-2351; doi:10.1093/humrep/den220
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
23/10/2346    most recent
den220v1
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 Related articles in Hum. Reprod.
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 (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bosch, E.
Right arrow Articles by Pellicer, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bosch, E.
Right arrow Articles by Pellicer, A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Highly purified hMG versus recombinant FSH in ovarian hyperstimulation with GnRH antagonists—a randomized study

E. Bosch1, C. Vidal, E. Labarta, C. Simon, J. Remohi and A. Pellicer

Instituto Valenciano de Infertilidad, E-46015 Valencia, Valencia 46015, Spain

1 Correspondence address: E-mail: ebosch{at}ivi.es

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 [ClinicalTrials.gov] .

Key words: GnRH antagonists/ovarian stimulation/FSH/hMG/RCT

Submitted on December 16, 2007; resubmitted on April 30, 2008; accepted on May 7, 2008.


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

Related articles in Hum. Reprod.:

Editor's Choice
André Van Steirteghem
Hum. Reprod. 2008 23: 2177-2178. [Extract] [FREE Full Text]  





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.