选择性保留生育能力的妇女卵巢过度刺激中高纯度hmg与rFSH的对比:一项回顾性队列研究。

IF 1.8 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Tal Israeli, Nivin Samara, Shimi Barda, Asnat Groutz, Foad Azem, Hadar Amir
{"title":"选择性保留生育能力的妇女卵巢过度刺激中高纯度hmg与rFSH的对比:一项回顾性队列研究。","authors":"Tal Israeli, Nivin Samara, Shimi Barda, Asnat Groutz, Foad Azem, Hadar Amir","doi":"10.5935/1518-0557.20240099","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare recombinant FSH (rFSH) with highly purified-human menopausal gonadotrophin (hp-hMG) on ovarian response in women undergoing elective fertility preservation (FP).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study included 456 women who underwent elective FP with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist or progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocols between 01/2017-12/2021. Only the first treatment cycle of each woman was included. 341 women were stimulated with rFSH and 115 with hp-hMG, and the ovarian stimulation outcomes were compared. A multivariate linear regression assessed the impact of age, basal FSH, antral follicle count (AFC) and protocol and gonadotropin types on the outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Women in the rFSH group were significantly younger, and their AFC was significantly higher than those in the hp-hMG group (35.50±2.12 vs. 35.99±2.13years, p=0.034 and 13.76±6.08 vs. 11.84±6.06, p=0.002). There were no significant group differences in the amount (p=0.645) and duration (p=0.265) of FSH stimulation. The estradiol level was significantly lower for the rFSH group compared to the hp-hMG group (2547.18±1648.21pg/mL vs. 3468.02±2497.69pg/mL, p<0.001), while the progesterone level was significantly higher (1.33±0.75 ng/mL vs. 1.01±0.52ng/mL, p=0.001). The numbers of retrieved and MII oocytes were significantly higher for the rFSH group compared with the hp-hMG group (16.82±10.95 vs. 13.25±9.66, p=0.02, and 13.22±9.13 vs. 9.76±7.11, p=0.005), while the maturity rates were comparable (p=0.103).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients in the rFSH group had higher numbers of both retrieved and MII oocytes when undergoing elective FP.</p>","PeriodicalId":46364,"journal":{"name":"Jornal Brasileiro de Reproducao Assistida","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Highly purified-hMG versus rFSH in ovarian hyperstimulation in women undergoing elective fertility preservation: a retrospective cohort study.\",\"authors\":\"Tal Israeli, Nivin Samara, Shimi Barda, Asnat Groutz, Foad Azem, Hadar Amir\",\"doi\":\"10.5935/1518-0557.20240099\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare recombinant FSH (rFSH) with highly purified-human menopausal gonadotrophin (hp-hMG) on ovarian response in women undergoing elective fertility preservation (FP).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study included 456 women who underwent elective FP with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist or progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocols between 01/2017-12/2021. Only the first treatment cycle of each woman was included. 341 women were stimulated with rFSH and 115 with hp-hMG, and the ovarian stimulation outcomes were compared. A multivariate linear regression assessed the impact of age, basal FSH, antral follicle count (AFC) and protocol and gonadotropin types on the outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Women in the rFSH group were significantly younger, and their AFC was significantly higher than those in the hp-hMG group (35.50±2.12 vs. 35.99±2.13years, p=0.034 and 13.76±6.08 vs. 11.84±6.06, p=0.002). There were no significant group differences in the amount (p=0.645) and duration (p=0.265) of FSH stimulation. The estradiol level was significantly lower for the rFSH group compared to the hp-hMG group (2547.18±1648.21pg/mL vs. 3468.02±2497.69pg/mL, p<0.001), while the progesterone level was significantly higher (1.33±0.75 ng/mL vs. 1.01±0.52ng/mL, p=0.001). The numbers of retrieved and MII oocytes were significantly higher for the rFSH group compared with the hp-hMG group (16.82±10.95 vs. 13.25±9.66, p=0.02, and 13.22±9.13 vs. 9.76±7.11, p=0.005), while the maturity rates were comparable (p=0.103).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients in the rFSH group had higher numbers of both retrieved and MII oocytes when undergoing elective FP.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46364,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Jornal Brasileiro de Reproducao Assistida\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Jornal Brasileiro de Reproducao Assistida\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20240099\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jornal Brasileiro de Reproducao Assistida","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20240099","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较重组卵泡刺激素(rFSH)与高纯度人绝经期促性腺激素(hp-hMG)对选择性生育保留(FP)妇女卵巢反应的影响。方法:这项回顾性研究纳入了456名在2017年1月1日至2021年12月期间接受了促性腺激素释放激素(GnRH)拮抗剂或黄体酮刺激卵巢(PPOS)方案的选择性计划生育的妇女。仅包括每位妇女的第一个治疗周期。341名妇女接受rFSH刺激,115名妇女接受hp-hMG刺激,比较卵巢刺激的结果。多变量线性回归评估年龄、基础FSH、窦卵泡计数(AFC)、方案和促性腺激素类型对结果的影响。结果:rFSH组女性明显年轻化,AFC明显高于hp-hMG组(35.50±2.12∶35.99±2.13年,p=0.034; 13.76±6.08∶11.84±6.06,p=0.002)。两组间FSH刺激量(p=0.645)和持续时间(p=0.265)差异无统计学意义。与hp-hMG组相比,rFSH组的雌二醇水平显著降低(2547.18±1648.21pg/mL vs. 3468.02±2497.69pg/mL)。结论:rFSH组患者在选择性FP时,回收卵母细胞和MII卵母细胞数量均较高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Highly purified-hMG versus rFSH in ovarian hyperstimulation in women undergoing elective fertility preservation: a retrospective cohort study.

Objective: To compare recombinant FSH (rFSH) with highly purified-human menopausal gonadotrophin (hp-hMG) on ovarian response in women undergoing elective fertility preservation (FP).

Methods: This retrospective study included 456 women who underwent elective FP with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist or progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocols between 01/2017-12/2021. Only the first treatment cycle of each woman was included. 341 women were stimulated with rFSH and 115 with hp-hMG, and the ovarian stimulation outcomes were compared. A multivariate linear regression assessed the impact of age, basal FSH, antral follicle count (AFC) and protocol and gonadotropin types on the outcomes.

Results: Women in the rFSH group were significantly younger, and their AFC was significantly higher than those in the hp-hMG group (35.50±2.12 vs. 35.99±2.13years, p=0.034 and 13.76±6.08 vs. 11.84±6.06, p=0.002). There were no significant group differences in the amount (p=0.645) and duration (p=0.265) of FSH stimulation. The estradiol level was significantly lower for the rFSH group compared to the hp-hMG group (2547.18±1648.21pg/mL vs. 3468.02±2497.69pg/mL, p<0.001), while the progesterone level was significantly higher (1.33±0.75 ng/mL vs. 1.01±0.52ng/mL, p=0.001). The numbers of retrieved and MII oocytes were significantly higher for the rFSH group compared with the hp-hMG group (16.82±10.95 vs. 13.25±9.66, p=0.02, and 13.22±9.13 vs. 9.76±7.11, p=0.005), while the maturity rates were comparable (p=0.103).

Conclusions: Patients in the rFSH group had higher numbers of both retrieved and MII oocytes when undergoing elective FP.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
6.70%
发文量
56
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信