Comparison of recombinant and urinary follicle-stimulating hormone preparations in short-term gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist protocol for in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer

The therapeutic effects of rFSH versus uFSH/uHMG on ovarian stimulation in women undergoing assisted reproductive technology: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the therapeutic effects of rFSH versus uFSH/uHMG on ovarian stimulation in women undergoing assisted reproductive technology.

METHODS

The databases of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched to retrieve data on eligible trials from inception until July 2022. The relative risks (RRs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were applied to assess categorical and continuous outcomes, and the pooled results were calculated using the random-effects model. Sensitivity, subgroup, and publication bias analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

Forty-eight trials that enrolled 10,127 women were included in this quantitative meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between rFSH and uFSH/uHMG in the clinical pregnancy rate (RR: 1.01; 95% CI 0.95-1.07; P = 0.760), live birth rate (RR: 0.98; 95% CI 0.91-1.06; P = 0.665), multiple pregnancy rate (RR: 0.92; 95% CI 0.77-1.09; P = 0.320), miscarriage rate (RR: 1.17; 95% CI 0.94-1.46; P = 0.151), and the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (RR: 1.25; 95% CI 0.91-1.70; P = 0.164). In addition, the administration of rFSH was associated with a higher number of oocyte retrieval compared with that of uFSH/uHMG (WMD: 0.61; 95% CI 0.03-1.20; P = 0.038), while no significant differences were found between rFSH and uFSH/uHMG in the dosage of gonadotrophin (WMD: 14.80; 95% CI - 136.97 to 166.57; P = 0.848) and the duration of ovarian stimulation (WMD: - 0.26; 95% CI - 0.62 to 0.10; P = 0.152). Thus, the exploratory analyses revealed several potential differences in the effects of rFSH versus uFSH/uHMG on ovarian stimulation.

CONCLUSION

The administration of rFSH significantly increased the number of oocytes retrieved, whereas there were no significant differences between the efficacies of rFSH and uFSH/uHMG for pregnancy outcomes.

The cumulative live birth rate of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone alfa verse urinary human follicle-stimulating hormone for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology cycles

Background

Infertility remains a significant public health concern. An issue with controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) is the selection of an exogenous gonadotropin (Gn) regimen, which is mainly based on urinary follicle-stimulating hormone (uFSH), recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone alfa (rFSH-alfa), and human menopausal gonadotropin (HMG). In addition, most previous studies focused on the clinical pregnancy rates or live birth rates (LBR) per transfer cycle, but not on the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) per started cycle. The CLBR, appears to be a more comprehensive and accurate universal measure of IVF treatment success. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) between rFSH-alfa and uFSH regimens for ovarian stimulation.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent assisted reproductive technology (ART) with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist long protocol between March 2009 and December 2018. Patients were grouped according to the Gn regimen received (rFSH-alfa or uFSH). The main outcome was CLBR, which defined as the first live birth following the use of all fresh and frozen embryos derived from a single COS cycle.

Results

A total of 1078 cycles were analyzed (314 with rFSH-alfa and 764 with uFSH). The rFSH-alfa group was characterized by a higher number of retrieved oocytes (13.3 vs. 11.0) and transferable embryos (5.0 vs. 4.0), a higher fresh embryo transfer rate (35.0% vs. 26.3%), and a higher multiple birth rate among the fresh embryo transfer cycles (8.2% vs. 2.5%) (P < 0.05). There were no differences in pregnancy rate (32.7% vs. 33.8%) and LBR (25.5% vs. 26.9%) per transfer cycle (P > 0.05). No significant difference was found in clinical outcomes among the frozen embryo transfer cycles (P > 0.05). The CLBR per started cycle in the rFSH-alfa group was higher than in the uFSH group (53.5% vs. 43.1%, P < 0.05). After adjustment, rFSH-alfa was independently associated with a higher CLBR (OR = 1.56; 95%CI = 1.18–2.05; P = 0.0018).

Conclusions

rFSH-alfa and uFSH have similar pregnancy rates and LBR per transfer cycle, rFSH-alfa might achieve more transferrable blastocysts and higher CLBR per started cycle compared to uFSH.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13048-022-01009-w.

Required amount of rFSH, HP-hMG and HP-FSH to reach a live birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis

STUDY QUESTION

In women undergoing IVF or ICSI cycles, do recombinant gonadotrophins differ from urinary-derived highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin (HP-hMG) or highly purified follicle-stimulating hormone (HP-FSH) in the total amount of gonadotrophins required to reach a live birth?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The difference between recombinant and urinary-derived HP-hMG or HP-FSH in the required amount to reach a live birth in IVF/ICSI cycles appears small.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

At present, gynecologists can choose between recombinant FSH (rFSH), urinary-derived HP-hMG and HP-FSH. These products are equally effective and safe, but it is unknown how these gonadotrophins compare in terms of IU required to reach a live birth.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE AND DURATION

We conducted a search in Medline, Embase and CINAHL up to July 2018. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared rFSH with HP-hMG or HP-FSH for ovarian stimulation in couples scheduled for IVF or ICSI treatment. From each randomized trial, we extracted the outcome data and information on participants, methods, interventions and funding.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING AND METHODS

Women undergoing ovarian stimulation with rFSH, HP-hMG or HP-FSH were included. We extracted data for the mean amount of gonadotrophins with SD, clinical pregnancy rate, live birth rate and cumulative live birth rate per woman from the included RCTs. We summarized these outcomes by calculating the individual and pooled mean difference (MD) or relative risk (RR) with 95% CI. We used the Review Manager software to perform the meta-analyses. We applied a random effect model to pool the data. We estimated the total amount of gonadotrophins used per extra live birth by STATA 14.2 and R software.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

A total of 28 studies with 7553 women were included in this review, of which 24 studies provided information on the total amount of gonadotrophins per woman who started an IVF/ICSI cycle. The total amount of gonadotrophins varied significantly between studies. The MDs in total amount were −37 IU (seven studies; N = 3220; 95% CI, −115 to 41; I² = 68%) for rFSH versus HP-hMG and −31 IU (17 studies; N = 3629; 95% CI, −290 to 228; I² = 97%) for rFSH versus HP-FSH. For rFSH versus HP-hMG, the RR for clinical pregnancy, live birth and cumulative live birth were 0.90 (95% CI, 0.81–1.00), 0.88 (95% CI, 0.78–0.99) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.80–1.04), respectively. For rFSH versus HP-FSH, the RR for clinical pregnancy and live birth were 1.03 (95% CI, 0.94–1.13) and 1.03 (95% CI, 0.90–1.18), respectively; the data on cumulative live birth rate were lacking. The estimated difference in mean gonadotrophin amount per extra live birth was 789 IU (95% CI, −9.5 to 1570) for rFSH versus HP-hMG and −365 IU (95% CI, −2675 to 1945) for rFSH versus HP-FSH.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

There was severe heterogeneity in the total amount of gonadotrophins between studies. A small fraction of women did not start gonadotrophin treatment; this was usually not accounted for in the provided mean amount of gonadotrophins per study and might have affected the averaged total amount of gonadotrophins but is unlikely to have affected the differences in the amount between rFSH and HP-hMG or HP-FSH.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The differences in the required amount to reach a live birth between rFSH, HP-hMG and HP-FSH appear to be small. Decision-making should be based on convenience, availability, actual costs and patient preferences.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

The authors declare no conflict of interest. No external funding was either sought or obtained for this study.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

Prospero CRD42016038238

Sequential protocol with urinary-FSH/recombinant-FSH versus standard protocol with recombinant-FSH in women of advanced age undergoing IVF

A stimulation protocol mimicking the physiological pattern of FSH release may improve IVF outcome in women of advanced age. Urinary-FSH delivers a wider range of isoforms including the most acidic produced during the early follicular phase when oestradiol level is low, a common condition in women of advanced reproductive age. We hypothesized that a stimulation protocol using urinary-FSH during the early follicular phase and then shifting toward recombinant-FSH may improve oocyte quality and pregnancy rate in 35-40 years old patients in IVF program. A retrospective study was performed: after a standard down-regulation with GnRH-analogue, 115 women underwent stimulation with urinary-FSH for 6 days according to a step-down approach and then shifting to recombinant-FSH (group A), 115 women underwent a stimulation protocol with only recombinant-FSH (group B). Days of stimulation were lower in group A than in group B, a higher proportion of MII oocytes and of grade 1 embryos, higher implantation rate and pregnancy rate were observed in group A versus group B. We conclude that a sequential protocol using urinary-FSH in the early days of stimulation and subsequently recombinant-FSH may improve the IVF outcome in patients of advanced reproductive age.

Are all human-derived follicle-stimulating hormone products the same? A systematic review and meta-analysis using direct and adjusted indirect analyses, to determine whether Fostimon® is more efficient than Metrodin-HP®

BACKGROUND

Randomized trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews have challenged the claim for superiority of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (recFSH) compared with human-derived FSH (hFSH). Even so, much of the evidence comes from unavailable products. If the efficacy of the currently available Fostimon(®) is superior, the off-market Metrodin-HP(®), then data from the latter should not be used, gauge of the former.

METHODS

Electronic/hand searches were performed to identify RCTs comparing Fostimon(®) vs. Metrodin-HP(®) or either product with recFSH. Primary outcomes were live-birth rate (LBR), ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR), and OPR/LBR. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), multiple pregnancy rate (MPR), ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), abortion rates, and cycle demographics. Data were extracted, allowed for an intention-to-treat analysis, and meta-analyzed using combined direct/adjusted indirect methods.

RESULTS

Twenty-two RCTs met the inclusion criteria: Fostimon(®) vs. Metrodin-HP(®) (n = 2); Fostimon(®) vs. recFSH (n = 8); and Metrodin-HP(®) vs. recFSH (n = 12). LBR (odds ratio = 1.72; 95% confidence interval = 1.05-2.80), OPR/LBR, and CPR were all significantly higher favoring Fostimon(®). OPR, MPR, OHSS, and miscarriage rates were not significantly different. Pooled results for cycle demographics were not reported due to high heterogeneity. Conclusions. Fostimon(®) is superior to Metrodin-HP(®) regarding clinical outcomes. Therefore, care should be taken not to assume that all hFSH products have the same efficacy.

Recombinant versus urinary gonadotrophin for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology cycles

BACKGROUND

Several systematic reviews compared recombinant gonadotrophin with urinary gonadotrophins (HMG, purified FSH, highly purified FSH) for ovarian hyperstimulation in IVF and ICSI cycles and these reported conflicting results. Each of these reviews used different inclusion and exclusion criteria for trials. Our aim in producing this review is to bring together all randomised studies in this field under common inclusion criteria with consistent and valid statistical methods.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of recombinant gonadotrophin (rFSH) with the three main types of urinary gonadotrophins (i.e. HMG, FSH-P and FSH-HP) for ovarian stimulation in women undergoing IVF or ICSI treatment cycles.

SEARCH STRATEGY

An extended search was done according to Cochrane guidelines including the Menstrual Disorders & Subfertility Group's Specialised Register of controlled trials, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (1966 to May 2010), EMBASE (1980 to May 2010), CINAHL (1982 to May 2010), National Research Register, and Current Controlled Trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials reporting data comparing clinical outcomes for women undergoing IVF/ICSI cycles and using recombinant FSH in comparison with HMG or highly purified HMG, purified urinary FSH (FSH-P), and highly purified urinary FSH (FSH-HP) for ovarian hyperstimulation in IVF or ICSI cycles were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Primary outcome measure was live birth rate and OHSS per randomised woman.Binary outcomes were analysed using odds ratios and also reported in absolute terms. Grouped analyses were carried out for all outcomes to explore whether relative effects differed due to key features of the trials.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 42 trials with a total of 9606 couples. Comparing rFSH to any of the other gonadotrophins irrespective of the down-regulation protocol used, did not result in any evidence of a statistically significant difference in live birth rate (28 trials, 7339 couples, odds ratio 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.08). This suggests that for a group with a 25% live birth rate using urinary gonadotrophins the rate would be between 22.5% and 26.5% using rFSH. There was also no evidence of a difference in the OHSS rate (32 trials, 7740 couples, OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.61). This means that for a group with 2% risk of OHSS using urinary gonadotrophins, the risk would be between 1.7% and 3.2% using rFSH.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Clinical choice of gonadotrophin should depend on availability, convenience and costs. Further research on these comparisons is unlikely to identify substantive differences in effectiveness or safety.

Recombinant versus highly-purified, urinary follicle-stimulating hormone (r-FSH vs. HP-uFSH) in ovulation induction: a prospective, randomized study with cost-minimization analysis

BACKGROUND

Both recombinant FSH (r-FSH) and highly-purified, urinary FSH (HP-uFSH) are frequently used in ovulation induction associated with timed sexual intercourse. Their effectiveness is reported to be similar, and therefore the costs of treatment represent a major issue to be considered. Although several studies about costs in IVF have been published, data obtained in low-technology infertility treatments are still scarce.

METHODS

Two hundred and sixty infertile women (184 with unexplained infertility, 76 with CC-resistant polycystic ovary syndrome) at their first treatment cycle were randomized and included in the study. Ovulation induction was accomplished by daily administration of rFSH or HP-uFSH according to a low-dose, step-up regimen aimed to obtain a monofollicular ovulation. A bi- or tri-follicular ovulation was anyway accepted, whereas hCG was withdrawn and the cycle cancelled when more than three follicles greater than or equal to 18 mm diameter were seen at ultrasound. The primary outcome measure was the cost of therapy per delivered baby, estimated according to a cost-minimization analysis. Secondary outcomes were the following: monofollicular ovulation rate, total FSH dose, cycle cancellation rate, length of the follicular phase, number of developing follicles (>12 mm diameter), endometrial thickness at hCG, incidence of twinning and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, delivery rate.

RESULTS

The overall FSH dose needed to achieve ovulation was significantly lower with r-FSH, whereas all the other studied variables did not significantly differ with either treatments. However, a trend toward a higher delivery rate with r-FSH was observed in the whole group and also when results were considered subgrouping patients according to the indication to treatment.

CONCLUSION

Considering the significantly lower number of vials/patient and the slight (although non-significant) increase in the delivery rate with r-FSH, the cost-minimization analysis showed a 9.4% reduction in the overall therapy cost per born baby in favor of r-FSH.

Urinary follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) is more effective than recombinant FSH in older women in a controlled randomized study

OBJECTIVE

The following study was conducted to determine which FSH, recombinant or urinary, works better in older women.

DESIGN

We conducted a controlled randomized study in a single university IVF center.

SETTING

University IVF center.

PATIENT(S)

Women (N = 257) over 39 years old undergoing IVF.

INTERVENTION(S)

The patients were randomized into two study groups at their first IVF cycle: 121 patients were treated with recombinant FSH, and 120 patients were treated with urinary FSH. Both groups were suppressed with a long GnRH analog protocol.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Days of stimulation, E2 at the day of hCG, total amount of FSH administered, number of oocytes collected, amount of FSH per oocyte, and number of embryos obtained.

RESULT(S)

Patients treated with urinary FSH required a significantly lower total amount of FSH, and a lower amount of FSH per oocyte than women treated with recombinant FSH. The other measures evaluated did not show any statistically significant differences.

CONCLUSION(S)

Our study showed that urinary FSH performed better in older women than recombinant FSH when associated with the long protocol.

Comparison of the effectiveness of recombinant and urinary FSH preparations in the achievement of follicular selection in chronic anovulation

In order to compare the effectiveness of urinary and recombinant FSH (rFSH) preparations in achieving the threshold of follicular growth, stimulated cycles from patients with chronic anovulation, treated with a constant dose of FSH until the emergence of a selected follicle, were retrospectively analysed. Sixty-four cycles were performed using a similar starting dose of either urinary FSH (group 1) or rFSH (group 2), which was kept constant up to the time of follicular selection, assessed on ultrasound (follicular diameter >10 mm). The results of this study showed that, while the number of selected follicles was similar, the mean daily FSH dose required to achieve the threshold of follicular selection was significantly lower in group 2 (70.4 +/- 3.4 IU/day) than in group 1 (86.5 +/- 4 IU/day; P < 0.005). Furthermore, at the time of human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) administration, the total FSH dose was significantly lower in group 2 than in group 1, but plasma oestradiol values were equivalent. These data suggest that the higher effectiveness of rFSH preparations over urinary ones may be explained by a lower threshold dose required to achieve follicular selection.