Recombinant versus urinary gonadotrophins for triggering ovulation in assisted conception
1 The Egyptian IVF-ET Center, Maadi, Cairo, 2 Cairo University, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Cairo, Egypt and 3 Auckland University, Auckland, New Zealand
4 To whom correspondence should be addressed at: 8-Moustapha Hassanin St, Manial, Cairo, 11451 Egypt. Email: kaainih{at}link.net
BACKGROUND: The objective of this systematic review was to assess the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous recombinant (r) HCG and high-dose rLH compared with intramuscular urinary (u) uHCG for inducing final oocyte maturation and triggering ovulation. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group trials register (August 27, 2003), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL on The Cochrane Library, issue 4, 2003), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2004) and EMBASE (1980 to February 2004). Searches were not limited by language. The bibliographies of included and excluded trials and abstracts of major meetings were searched for additional trials. Authors and pharmaceutical companies were contacted for missing and unpublished data. Only truly randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Assessment of inclusion/exclusion, quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by at least two reviewers. RESULTS: Seven RCTs were identified, four comparing rHCG and uHCG and three comparing rhLH and uHCG. There was no statistically significant difference between rHCG and uHCG regarding the ongoing pregnancy/live birth rate [odds ratio (OR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69–1.39], clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate or incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). There was no statistically significant difference between rhLH and uHCG regarding the ongoing pregnancy/live birth rate (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.50–1.76), pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate or incidence of OHSS. rHCG was associated with a reduction in the incidence of local site reactions (OR 0.47; 95% CI 0.32–0.70). CONCLUSIONS: According to these data, there is no evidence of a difference in clinical outcomes between urinary and recombinant gonadotrophins used for induction of final follicular maturation. Additional factors should be considered when choosing gonadotrophin type, including safety, cost and drug availability.
Key words: assisted conception/ovulation/randomized controlled trials/recombinant gonadotrophins/urinary gonadotrophins
This paper is based on a Cochrane review ‘Recombinant versus urinary human chorionic gonadotrophin for ovulation induction in assisted conception’. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005 Issue 2 Art No CD003719
This article has been cited by other articles:
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
E.J. Margalioth, A. Ben-Chetrit, M. Gal, and T. Eldar-Geva
Investigation and treatment of repeated implantation failure following IVF-ET
Hum. Reprod.,
December 1, 2006;
21(12):
3036 - 3043.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
U.-H. Stenman, A. Tiitinen, H. Alfthan, and L. Valmu
The classification, functions and clinical use of different isoforms of HCG
Hum. Reprod. Update,
November 1, 2006;
12(6):
769 - 784.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
C. C.W. Chan and E. H.Y. Ng
Is 250 {micro}g rHCG always better and safer than 500 {micro}g rHCG?
Hum. Reprod.,
February 1, 2006;
21(2):
569 - 570.
[Full Text]
[PDF]