Ovulation induction with urinary FSH or recombinant FSH in polycystic ovary syndrome patients: a prospective randomized analysis of cost-effectiveness. Induction of ovulation in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques: recombinant human FSH (follitropin alpha) versus highly purified urinary FSH (urofollitropin HP). Recombinant FSH vs. urinary FSH for ovarian stimulation in in vitro fertilization.
The aim of this prospective, randomized trial was to compare the clinical results and the cost-effectiveness of urinary FSH (uFSH) and recombinant FSH (rFSH) in ovarian stimulation for intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles in polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) patients. One-hundred and seventy PCOS infertile patients undergoing IUI were enrolled, and protocols of ovarian stimulation with uFSH or rFSH were randomly assigned. The total number of cycles performed was 379 (182 and 197, respectively). The main outcome measures were the number of mature follicles, the days of stimulation, the number of ampoules and IU used per cycle, the biochemical/clinical pregnancy rates, the number of multiple pregnancies and the cost-effectiveness. No statistically significant differences were found in the follicular development, length of stimulation, pregnancy rates, delivery rates and multiple pregnancies between the two groups. In the uFSH group, the cost per cycle remained significantly lower (218.51 +/- 88.69 versus 312.22 +/- 118.12; P < 0.0001), even though a significantly higher number of IU of gonadotrophins were used (809.3 +/- 271.9 versus 589.1 +/- 244.7; P < 0.0001). The cost-effectiveness (i. e. within a group, the total cost of all cycles divided by no. of clinical pregnancies) was 1729.08 in the uFSH group and 3075.37 in the rFSH group. In conclusion, uFSH and rFSH demonstrated the same effectiveness in ovarian stimulation in IUI cycles in PCOS patients. The urinary preparation is more cost-effective due to the difference of its cost per IU. This multicentre, open, randomized, study compared the efficacy and safety of recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH; follitropin alpha) with highly purified urinary human FSH (uFSH; urofollitropin HP) in women undergoing ovulation induction for assisted reproductive techniques. Following long down-regulation with buserelin, patients received two ampoules of 75 IU (150 IU) s.c. rFSH or highly purified uFSH for 6 days, after which the dose could be increased until they fulfilled the criteria for human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) administration. Of 168 patients recruited, 155 received at least one dose of FSH, and 137 received HCG [68: rFSH (85%); 69: uFSH (92%)]. Following oocyte retrieval and fertilization, up to three embryos were replaced/patient and luteal support was given. The mean number of oocytes retrieved/patient was 10.2 +/- 6.0 for rFSH patients compared with 10.8 +/- 6.1 in the uFSH group (not significant). There was a trend towards fewer ampoules used (22.3 +/- 6.5 versus 24.3 +/- 6.5), higher pregnancy (44.3 versus 41.4%) and live birth rates (33.8 versus 26.7%), as well as a lower miscarriage rate (0.0 versus 16.7%) in favour of rFSH. However, no significant differences in efficacy parameters were recorded. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome occurred in 8.6% and 7.9% of rFSH and uFSH patients respectively. In conclusion, this protocol was effective in inducing multiple follicular development and high numbers of oocytes were retrieved with both drugs. To compare ovarian stimulation with recombinant FSH (rFSH) vs. urinary FSH (uFSH) in terms of hormonal events within ovarian follicles and the outcome of in vitro fertilization.
                A prospective randomized comparative study of rFSH (n = 70) vs. uFSH (n = 61) ovarian stimulation. Hormone determinations were serum estradiol (E2) on the day of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) administration, and E2, androstenedione (A) and testosterone (T) at the time of follicular aspiration in the follicular fluid and serum.
                The total dose of gonadotropins required and the length of ovarian stimulation were the same in the 2 groups. In follicular fluid the E2 and the A levels were significantly higher in the rFSH group (3,065 +/- 1,646 vs. 2,368 +/- 1,240 nmol/L, P = .004, and 103.7 +/- 51.6 vs. 89.0 +/- 42.3 nmol/L, P = .042, respectively), whereas A:E2 and T:E2 ratios were significantly lower (39.6 +/- 22.5 vs. 52.3 +/- 59.6, P = .042, and 9.1 +/- 4.7 vs. 17.6 +/- 26.9, P = .006, respectively). Serum hormonal levels, number of oocytes retrieved and pregnancy rates did not differ significantly between the groups.
                rFSH provides results similar to those of uFSH. rFSH enhances steroidogenesis and provokes different androgen/estrogen ratios than does uFSH without influencing the outcome of in vitro fertilization.
At this moment there are not sufficient data to determine which of rFSH or uFSH is preferable for ovulation induction in women with PCOS.