Perelson del Pozo I, Ruesta-Terán C, Sánchez-Fernández MP, Cristóbal-García I, Neyro JL

Language: Spanish
References: 9
Page: 578-588
PDF size: 384.61 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: Earlier trials comparing different ovarian stimulating protocols in assisted reproduction found no significant differences in the results.
Objetive: To evaluate the effect of three different stimulation protocols based on the glycosylation pattern of the follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) in an intrauterine insemination (IUI) program. The stimulating protocols are: human FSH (acidic isoform), recombinant FSH (less acidic isoform) and combined urinary and recombinant FSH.
Materials and Methods: Cohort study, retrospective, conducted between May 2012 and May 2015 in infertile couples in protocol of artificial insemination. The study group was divided into three: 1) FSHr, 2) FSHhp and 3) sequential pacing: FSHhp + FSHr. For statistical analysis, χ², ANOVA or Mann-Whitney test were used. The results are reported with a significance limit of p ‹ 0.05.
Results: 178 infertile couples were studied in an artificial insemination protocol and 299 cycles of ovarian stimulation were performed with artificial insemination; Group 1) 99 with FSHr, 2) 100 with FSHhp and 3) 100 with sequential stimulation: FSHhp + FSHr.
Conclusion: In this study, controlled ovarian stimulation with sequential protocol was considered in patients who would receive artificial insemination and, although no significant differences were found, a trend was observed in which both the dose and the days of stimulation required are lower with this protocol than with the classics with FSHr or FSHu.

REFERENCES

1. Lispi M, Basset R, Crisci C, Mancilnelli M, Martelli F, Cecarelli D, et al. Comparative assessment of the consistency and quality of a highly purified FSH extracted fron urine and recombinant human FSH. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;13:179-93.

2. Antonio MD, Borrelli F, Datola A, Bucci R, Mascia M, Polleta P, et al. Biological characterization of recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone isoforms. Hum Reprod. 1999; 14: 1160-7.

3. Ulloa-AguirreA, Damina-Matsumura P, Jimenez M, Zambrano E, Diaz-Sanchez V. Biological characterization of the isoforms of urinary human follicle stimulating hormone contained in a purified commercial preparation. Human Reprod. 1992;7:1371-8.

4. Zambrano E, Olivares A, Mendez JP, Guerrero L, Diaz-Cueto L, Veldhuis JD, et al. Dynamica of basal and gonadotropinreleasing hormone -releasable serum follicle - stimulating hormone charge isoform distribution throughout the human menstruak cycle. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1995;80:1647-56.

5. Gerli S, Bini V, Di Renzo GC. Cost effectiveness of recombinant follicle- stimulating hormones versus human FHS in intrauterine insmination cycles : a statistical model derived analysis. Gynecological Endocrinology. 2008 January; 24(1):18-23.

6. Gerli S, Casini ML, Unfer V et al. Recombinant versus urinary fsh in IUI cycles. A prospective randomized analysiscost effectiveness. Fertility and Sterility. 2004 sept;83(3):573-578.

7. Neyro JL, Barrenetxea G, Montoya F, Rodriguez-Escudero FJ. Pure FSH for ovulation induction in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome and resistant to clomiphene citrate therapy. Hum Reprod. 1991 Feb; 6(2): 218-21.

8. Selman H, Pacchiarotti A; El-Danasouri I. Ovarian stimulation protocolsbased on follicle-stimulating hormone glycosylation pattern: impact on oocyte quiality and clinical outcome. Fertil and Steril. 2010;94:1782-1786.

9. Goodman SN BJ. The use of predicted confidence intervals when planning experiments and the misuse of power when interpreting results. Ann Intern Med. 1994 Aug;121(3): 200-6.