Daya S, Gunby J
Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, 2407 Carrington Place, Oakville, Ontario, Canada, L6J 7R6.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Jul 18;2006(3):CD002810. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002810.pub2.
Until recently, the main source of exogenous follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) for therapeutic use in infertility had been the urine of postmenopausal women. New developments have resulted in the production of FSH in vitro by recombinant DNA technology. The extremely high purity and batch-to-batch consistency of recombinant FSH (rFSH) make it an attractive alternative to urinary FSH (uFSH).
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials comparing the effectiveness of rFSH with uFSH in ovarian stimulation protocols in in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment cycles.
Search strategies included on-line searching of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from 1985 to 1999, hand searching of bibliographies of relevant publications and reviews and abstracts of scientific meetings, peer consultation and contacting the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the gonadotropins under consideration.
Randomised trials comparing rFSH with uFSH for ovarian stimulation in IVF or ICSI treatment for infertility.
The main outcome measure was clinical pregnancy per cycle started. Also considered were clinical pregnancy per cycle reaching oocyte retrieval and per cycle reaching embryo transfer (ET), ongoing pregnancy per cycle started, spontaneous abortion, multiple pregnancy, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), number of follicles and serum estradiol level on the day of human chorionic gonadotropin administration day, total dose of FSH, and number of oocytes retrieved. Common odds ratios (OR) and risk differences for rFSH relative to uFSH were calculated after testing for homogeneity of treatment effect across all trials. The fixed effects model was used, unless significant heterogeneity was present, in which case the random effects model was used.
The overall odds ratio for clinical pregnancy per cycle started was 1.21 (95% confidence limits (CL) 1.04,1.42) for rFSH compared to uFSH. The risk difference was a 3.7% (0.8,6.7) absolute increase in clinical pregnancy rate with rFSH. The OR for ongoing pregnancy per cycle started was 1.29 (1.08,1.54). There was no significant difference between rFSH and uFSH in the rates of spontaneous abortion, multiple pregnancy or OHSS. The total dose of FSH was lower by 406 (185,627) IU with rFSH, but there was no significant difference in the number of follicles or serum estradiol on hCG day or in the number of oocytes retrieved.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review has demonstrated a statistically significant increase in clinical pregnancy rate with rFSH compared to uFSH, when used for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction. This benefit was observed only in standard IVF cycles and not in cycles in which ICSI was used.
直到最近,用于不孕症治疗的外源性促卵泡激素(FSH)的主要来源一直是绝经后妇女的尿液。新的进展使得通过重组DNA技术在体外生产FSH成为可能。重组FSH(rFSH)极高的纯度和批次间的一致性使其成为尿源性FSH(uFSH)颇具吸引力的替代品。
对比较rFSH与uFSH在体外受精(IVF)或卵胞浆内单精子注射(ICSI)治疗周期中卵巢刺激方案有效性的随机试验进行系统评价和荟萃分析。
检索策略包括1985年至1999年在线检索MEDLINE和EMBASE数据库、手工检索相关出版物的参考文献以及综述和科学会议摘要、同行咨询以及联系正在考虑的促性腺激素生产制药公司。
比较rFSH与uFSH在IVF或ICSI治疗不孕症中进行卵巢刺激的随机试验。
主要结局指标是每个开始周期的临床妊娠。还考虑了每个达到卵母细胞采集的周期、每个达到胚胎移植(ET)的周期的临床妊娠、每个开始周期的持续妊娠、自然流产、多胎妊娠、卵巢过度刺激综合征(OHSS)、人绒毛膜促性腺激素给药日的卵泡数量和血清雌二醇水平、FSH的总剂量以及采集的卵母细胞数量。在对所有试验的治疗效果进行同质性检验后,计算rFSH相对于uFSH的常见比值比(OR)和风险差异。除非存在显著异质性,否则使用固定效应模型,在这种情况下使用随机效应模型。
与uFSH相比,rFSH每个开始周期的临床妊娠总体比值比为1.21(95%置信区间(CL)1.04,1.42)。风险差异是rFSH使临床妊娠率绝对提高3.7%(0.8,6.7)。每个开始周期的持续妊娠OR为1.29(1.08,1.54)。rFSH与uFSH在自然流产率、多胎妊娠率或OHSS发生率方面无显著差异。rFSH的FSH总剂量低406(185,627)IU,但在hCG日的卵泡数量或血清雌二醇水平或采集的卵母细胞数量方面无显著差异。
本综述表明,在辅助生殖中用于卵巢刺激时,与uFSH相比,rFSH的临床妊娠率有统计学意义的提高。仅在标准IVF周期中观察到这种益处,而在使用ICSI的周期中未观察到。