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 (15)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Matorras, R.
Right arrow Articles by Rodríguez-Escudero, F.J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Matorras, R.
Right arrow Articles by Rodríguez-Escudero, F.J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Human Reproduction, Vol. 15, No. 6, 1231-1234, June 2000
© 2000 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology

Recombinant human FSH versus highly purified urinary FSH: a randomized study in intrauterine insemination with husbands' spermatozoa

R. Matorras1, V. Recio, B. Corcóstegui and F.J. Rodríguez-Escudero

Human Reproduction Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hospital De Cruces, País Vasco University, Baracaldo, Vizcaya, Spain

A randomized trial was carried out comparing recombinant FSH (rFSH) and highly purified urinary FSH (uFSH) in intrauterine insemination (IUI) with husbands' spermatozoa. A total of 45 women received rFSH (139 cycles), while 46 women received uFSH (155 cycles). The starting dose was 150 IU/day s.c., beginning on the second day, and on days 6–7 the dose was adjusted according to ovarian response, assessed by vaginal ultrasound and plasma oestradiol concentration. The pregnancy rate according to the intention to treat was 57.8% in rFSH versus 52.2% in uFSH, the corrected pregnancy rates 56.8% and 52.2%, and the cumulative pregnancy rates 69.6% and 61.0%, but the differences were not statistically significant. The per cycle pregnancy rate was 18.12% in rFSH and 15.48% in u-FSH, also not statistically significant. In the rFSH group, the consumption of FSH ampoules per cycle was significantly lower (19.20 ± 7.02 versus 23.80 ± 10.78; P < 0.0001). The ratio of oestradiol/FSH ampoules was significantly higher in rFSH (56.45 ± 31.26 versus 46.41 ± 29.25; P < 0.001). These data indicate that, in IUI cycles, rFSH has a higher potency than uFSH.

Key words: intrauterine insemination/oestradiol/ovarian stimulation/pregnancy rate/recombinant FSH

1 To whom correspondence should be addressed at: María Diaz de Haro 7, 6 iz, 48013 Bilbao, Spain. E-mail: rmatorras{at}hcru.osakidetza.net


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
O. Ramon, R. Matorras, B. Corcostegui, A. Meabe, J. Burgos, A. Exposito, and L. Crisol
Ultrasound-guided artificial insemination: a randomized controlled trial
Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2009; 24(5): 1080 - 1084.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
T. Dankert, J.A.M. Kremer, B.J. Cohlen, C.J.C.M. Hamilton, P.C.M. Pasker-de Jong, H. Straatman, and P.A. van Dop
A randomized clinical trial of clomiphene citrate versus low dose recombinant FSH for ovarian hyperstimulation in intrauterine insemination cycles for unexplained and male subfertility
Hum. Reprod., March 1, 2007; 22(3): 792 - 797.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
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]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
R. Matorras and F. J. Rodriguez-Escudero
Bye-bye urinary gonadotrophins?: The use of urinary gonadotrophins should be discouraged
Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2002; 17(7): 1675 - 1675.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
P.G. Crosignani
Bye-bye urinary gonadotrophins?: Risk of infection is not the main problem
Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2002; 17(7): 1676 - 1676.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
T. Miskry and M. Chapman
The use of intrauterine insemination in Australia and New Zealand
Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2002; 17(4): 956 - 959.
[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.