Current Therapeutic Research (Jan 2020)
Gonadotropin versus Follicle-Stimulating Hormone for Ovarian Response in Patients Undergoing in vitro Fertilization: A Retrospective Cohort Comparison
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Background: Poor ovarian responders generally refer to patients who respond poorly to ovarian stimulation for assisted reproductive techniques (ART) such as in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and hence experience low live birth rate. Various controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) protocols have been developed during the past 3 decades for IVF/ICSI to improve oocyte quality and ultimately live birth rate, to increase ovarian response in POR patients, and to reduce the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Both highly puri?ed human menopausal gonadotropin (hp-hMG) and recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) have been widely used for COS during IVF/ICSI. Their in?uence on treatment outcome in women undergoing IVF/ICSI hasbeen actively debated. Objectives: To compare highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin (hp-hMG) and recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) in patients with poor ovarian response undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 60 patients with poor ovarian response (30 received hp-hMG and 30 received rFSH) undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol. Pregnancy-related outcomes, ovarian response, oocyte, and embryo parameters were compared between the 2 groups. Additionally, serum insulin-like growth factor-1 and insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1 levels on the day of oocyte retrieval were compared between the 2 groups. Results: The 2 treatments resulted in comparable numbers of oocytes retrieved and embryos, comparable oocyte retrieval rate, mature oocyte rate, and fertilization rate, and also comparable clinical pregnancy rates, implantation rates, and miscarriage rate. However, hp-hMG led to statistically insignificant higher viable embryo rate (54.0% vs 44.8%; P = 0.174) and live birth rate per pregnancy (16.7% vs 10%) versus rFSH. Finally, statistically significantly higher serum insulin-like growth factor-1 level (178.53 [13.70] ng/mL vs 164.93 [12.17] ng/mL; P = 0.01) and statistically insignificantly lower serum insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1 level (19.53 [3.56] ng/mL vs the lower insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1 level SD is (2.76 [20.83] ng/mL; P > 0.05) on the day of oocyte retrieval were associated with hp-hMG versus rFSH. Conclusions: hp-HMG and rFSH did not lead to significantly different treatment outcomes in patients with poor ovarian response undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol, although significantly higher serum insulin-like growth factor-1 level and insignificantly lower serum insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1 level on the day of oocyte retrieval associated with hp-HMG might suggest a beneficial endocrine environment. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2020; 81:XXX–XXX)
