Ovulation induction in the new millennium: Recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone versus human menopausal gonadotropin

The renewed interest in luteinizing hormone (LH), together with limited and decreasing health resources, make essential the comparison of high-cost, recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) preparations (devoid of LH) and human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) in terms of clinical efficacy. All published, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing rFSH versus hMG under different protocols of stimulation were examined. Eight true RCTs were included in this meta-analysis, recruiting 2031 participants. Data for ongoing pregnancy/live birth rate, clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, multiple pregnancy rate and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) were extracted, and odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated with the use of a fixed-effects model. Data for the meta-analysis were combined using RevMan software (using the Mantel-Haenszel method). Pooling the results of these RCTs showed no significant difference between rFSH and hMG regarding the different outcomes: ongoing pregnancy/live birth rate, OR 1.18 (95% CI 0.93-1.50); clinical pregnancy rate, OR 1.2 (95% CI 0.99-1.47), miscarriage rate, OR 1.2 (95% CI 0.70-2.16), multiple pregnancy rate, OR 1.35 (95% CI 0.96-1.90); incidence of moderate/severe OHSS, OR 1.79 (95% CI 0.74-4.33). However, there was significant reduction in the amount of gonadotropins in favor of hMG over rFSH. There was no significant heterogeneity of treatment effect across the trials. In conclusion, there is no clinically significant difference between hMG and rFSH in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Decision-makers should establish their choice of one drug over die other based on the most up-to-date evidence available.