Corsan GH, Kemmann E. The role of superovulation with menotropins in ovulatory infertility: a review.
Fertil Steril 1991;
55:468-77. [PMID:
1900476 DOI:
10.1016/s0015-0282(16)54169-7]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Abstract
The risks of menotropin therapy (ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, multiple gestation, adnexal torsion) are well known and have been previously described. Superovulation should not be considered for the indications described herein until more traditional therapies for infertility have been tried and found unsuccessful and sufficient time has elapsed for conception to occur. The cost of superovulation is high: the medications are expensive, frequent E2 monitoring and US studies are costly, and pregnancy complications relating to the higher rate of pregnancy loss and multiple gestation may add substantially to the overall cost. Yet, compared with IVF and GIFT, superovulation cycles combined with IUI cost between one third to one sixth that of an IVF cycle. Protocols involving combined CC/hMG/hCG, which reduce the total number of ampules of Pergonal needed per cycle and still provide multiple follicular development, may further reduce costs. There is a growing consensus that superovulation-IUI protocols should be attempted before GIFT and IVF in couples with normal pelvic viscera. There is little doubt that IVF and GIFT cycles are more costly, stressful, and complex. No comparative data have clearly shown IVF and GIFT to be superior to superovulation protocols in ovulatory women with normal pelvic anatomy. In the only study examining this issue published to date, Kaplan et al. retrospectively analyzed all GIFT and superovulation/IUI cycles at a single university center and found GIFT to be three times more efficient. However, the inherent limitations of a nonrandomized, nonprospective study of this kind are obvious as these authors have suggested. Therefore, it may be wise to consider the use of superovulation before assisted reproductive technologies until this issue is settled. It would be interesting to determine if the high PRs reported for couples with unexplained infertility or mild endometriosis in IVF and GIFT cycles in some centers not incorporating superovulation/IUI protocols would hold up if such an approach was routinely followed. Despite the increasing acceptance of superovulation protocols, we must be aware that many of the studies suggesting a role of hMG in treating ovulatory infertile women with normal pelvic anatomy suffer from deficiencies in experimental design. In a payor-driven system, such as in the United States, the difficulties in designing and carrying out scientifically sound clinical studies examining infertility therapies are obvious. The lack of federal or outside funding for the study of infertility issues contributes to the problem. It is our hope that better designed studies examining the role of superovulation in the treatment of ovulatory infertile women with normal pelvic anatomy will be forthcoming.
Collapse