Biogenesi Reproductive Medicine Centre, Istituti Clinici Zucchi, Via Zucchi, 24, Monza, Italy.
Department of Medical Physics, ASST Monza, Monza, Italy.
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017 Dec;34(12):1645-1651. doi: 10.1007/s10815-017-1034-z. Epub 2017 Sep 4.
The aim of this study is to determine whether a clinical advantage is gained with use of LH in combination with FSH or as a component of human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) to achieve optimal ovarian stimulation.
In this study, we compared retrospectively two regimens, r-FSH/r-LH and hMG, for the treatment of women with reduced ovarian reserve, identified as subjects with antral follicle count (AFC) < 11 and AMH ≤ 1.1 ng/ml.
Overall, the clinical pregnancy per started cycle was higher in the r-FSH/r-LH group (12.5 vs. 8.1%, P < 0.02), while implantation (11.1 vs. 9.5%) and miscarriage rates (29.9 vs. 35.9%) were comparable. Data were further analysed performing separate comparisons in subpopulations with different ranges of AFC, i.e. < 4, 4-6 and 7-10. Major differences between the two regimens were observed in women with AFC < 4. In this subpopulation, not only was the clinical pregnancies per started cycle higher in the r-FSH/r-LH group (10.2 vs. 1.5%, P < 0.01), but also implantation was significantly higher (13.0 vs. 2.8%, P < 0.02).
A r-FSH/r-LH regimen appears to be beneficial for the treatment of women with extremely poor ovarian reserve. It should be considered however that, being retrospective, this study is affected by obvious limitations, such as post-treatment patient selection criteria and absence of randomisation.
本研究旨在确定在获得最佳卵巢刺激的情况下,使用 LH 联合 FSH 或作为人绝经促性腺激素(hMG)的成分是否具有临床优势。
在这项研究中,我们回顾性比较了两种方案,即 r-FSH/r-LH 和 hMG,用于治疗卵巢储备减少的女性,这些女性的窦卵泡计数(AFC)<11 和 AMH ≤1.1ng/ml。
总体而言,r-FSH/r-LH 组的起始周期临床妊娠率更高(12.5% vs. 8.1%,P<0.02),而着床率(11.1% vs. 9.5%)和流产率(29.9% vs. 35.9%)相当。数据进一步在 AFC 不同范围的亚组中进行了单独比较,即<4、4-6 和 7-10。在 AFC<4 的女性中,两种方案之间存在明显差异。在这个亚组中,r-FSH/r-LH 组的起始周期临床妊娠率更高(10.2% vs. 1.5%,P<0.01),着床率也显著更高(13.0% vs. 2.8%,P<0.02)。
r-FSH/r-LH 方案似乎有益于治疗卵巢储备极差的女性。然而,应该注意的是,由于这是一项回顾性研究,因此存在明显的局限性,例如治疗后患者选择标准和缺乏随机化。