Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF )
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 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 arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Daya, S.
Right arrow Articles by Sagle, M. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Daya, S.
Right arrow Articles by Sagle, M. A.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Human Reproduction, Vol. 10, No. 6, pp. 1392-1396, 1995
© 1995 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology

Randomized controlled trial of follicle stimulating hormone versus human menopausal gonadotrophin in in-vitro fertilization*

Salim Daya1,2,3, Joanne Gunby1, Edward G. Hughes1, John A. Collins1,2 and Margaret A. Sagle1

1 Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McMaster University 1200 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8N 3Z5, Canada 2 Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University 1200 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8N 3Z5, Canada

Correspondence: 3To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McMaster University, 1200 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8N 3Z5, Canada

The adverse effect of raised luteinizing hormone (LH) concentrations on reproductive outcome suggests that exogenous LH administration for ovarian stimulation may not be desirable. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical pregnancy rates between follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) and human menopausal gonadotrophin (HMG) used in in-vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles. A total of 232 infertile patients, with a mean duration of infertility of 67.1 ± 32.9 months, were selected for IVF (female age <38 years, FSH <15 IU/1, and total motile sperm count >5x106). A short (flare-up) protocol with daily leuprolide acetate was followed randomly from day 3 with FSH (n = 115) or human menopausal gonadotrophin (HMG; n = 117), at an initial dose of two ampoules per day. A maximum of three embryos was transferred, and the luteal phase was supported with four doses of HCG (2500 IU). No differences were observed between the two groups in any of the cycle response variables except fertilization rates per oocyte and per patient, both of which were significantly higher with FSH. Clinical pregnancy rates per cycle initiated, per oocyte retrieval and per embryo transfer were 19.1, 21.0 and 22.7% respectively for FSH, and 12.0, 12.8 and 15.4% respectively for HMG. Whilst these differences were not statistically significant, the results of this interim analysis suggest that HMG may be associated with a lower clinical pregnancy rate than FSH.

Key words: gonadotrophins/gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist/in-vitro fertilization/infertility/randomized controlled trial

Submitted on December 6, 1994; accepted on March 13, 1995.


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 ReprodHome page
Z. Kilani, A. Dakkak, S. Ghunaim, G.E. Cognigni, C. Tabarelli, L. Parmegiani, and M. Filicori
A prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing highly purified hMG with recombinant FSH in women undergoing ICSI: ovarian response and clinical outcomes
Hum. Reprod., June 1, 2003; 18(6): 1194 - 1199.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
J. H. Check
HMG is possibly superior to recombinant FSH for IVF
Hum. Reprod., November 1, 2001; 16(11): 2473 - 2473.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
S. Daya and J. Gunby
Recombinant versus urinary follicle stimulating hormone for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction
Hum. Reprod., September 1, 1999; 14(9): 2207 - 2215.
[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.