Efficacy of Highly Purified Urinary FSH versus Recombinant FSH in Chinese Women over 37 Years Undergoing Assisted Reproductive Techniques

A reappraisal of ovarian stimulation strategies used in assisted reproductive technology

Ovarian stimulation is a fundamental step in assisted reproductive technology (ART) with the intention of inducing ovarian follicle development prior to timed intercourse or intra-uterine insemination and facilitating the retrieval of multiple oocytes during a single in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle. The basis of ovarian stimulation includes the administration of exogenous gonadotropins, with or without pre-treatment with oral hormonal therapy. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist or antagonist is given in addition to the gonadotropins to prevent a premature rise of endogenous luteinizing hormone that would in turn lead to premature ovulation. With the advancement in technology, various stimulation protocols have been devised to cater for different patient needs. However, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and its serious complications may occur following ovarian stimulation. It is also evident that suboptimal ovarian stimulation strategies may have a negative impact on oogenesis, embryo quality, endometrial receptivity, and reproductive outcomes over recent years. This review describes the various forms of pre-treatment for ovarian stimulation and stimulation protocols, and aims to provide clinicians with the latest available evidence.

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

Probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis of controlled ovarian stimulation with recombinant FSH plus recombinant LH vs. human menopausal gonadotropin for women undergoing IVF

BACKGROUND

The association of recombinant FSH plus recombinant LH in 2:1 ratio may be used not only to induce ovulation in anovulatory women with hypogonadotropic hypogonadism but also to achieve multiple follicular developments in human IVF. The aim of this analysis was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) with recombinant FSH (rFSH) plus recombinant LH (rLH) in comparison with highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin (HP-hMG) in the woman undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) in Italy.

METHODS

A probabilistic decision tree was developed to simulate patients undergoing IVF, either using r-FSH + r-LH or HP-hMG to obtain COS. The model considers the National Health System (NHS) perspective and a time horizon equal to two years. Simulations were reported considering the number of retrieved oocytes (5-9, 10-15 and > 15) and transition probabilities were estimated through specific analyses carried out on the population of 848 women enrolled in the real-life.

RESULTS

The model estimated that patients undertaking therapeutic protocol with r-FSH + r-LH increase the general success rate (+ 6.6% for pregnancy). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of r-FSH + r-LH was below the willingness to pay set at €20,000 for all the considered scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-utility analysis demonstrated that the r-FSH + r-LH is a cost-effective option for the Italian National Health System (NHS).

Urinary Versus Recombinant Gonadotropins for Ovarian Stimulation in Women Undergoing Treatment with Assisted Reproductive Technology

Globally, about 10%-15% couples are affected by infertility, with major role being played by the couple's lifestyle. Several gonadotropin preparations (urinary, purified urinary, recombinant, and biosimilars) are available for use. Purified urinary formulations offer numerous advantages over their predecessor, including lesser injection dose required, ability to be administered subcutaneously, less batch-to-batch variability, better efficacy, ability to individualize protocols as per patient's need, better control of developing follicles, less risk of multiple pregnancies, and hyperstimulation. Published results of Cochrane reviews and meta-analysis show no difference in efficacy or safety between urinary and recombinant gonadotropins. In the absence of any significant difference, cost plays an important role in deciding choice of gonadotropins. In this article, we have reviewed the results of comparative clinical trials, Cochrane analysis, and meta-analysis to derive consensus statements regarding efficacy, safety, and cost implications of urinary versus recombinant gonadotropin preparations.