No abstract

No abstract

Whether recombinant gonadotrophin products do, indeed, represent progress for routine ovulation induction and IVF cycles, in comparison with urinary products, has remained controversial. Here we review published data with regard to respective risks, outcomes and cost for both medication options. Safety considerations favour recombinant products, while overall outcome and cost considerations favour urinary gonadotrophins. Outcome, however, appears to differ, based on age and ovarian function, with younger patients benefiting from the FSH/LH combination offered by urinary products, while older women and young women with ovarian resistance, apparently benefiting from pure FSH stimulation. Young women with poor ovarian reserve may be best stimulated with a pure FSH/antagonist protocol. We conclude that under current pricing structures in the United States, recombinant gonadotrophins do not represent a major progress for the treatments of ovulation induction and IVF. They, however, allow for an improved selectivity of stimulation protocols. The creation of recombinant FSH/LH products and cost adjustments for recombinant products, may affect these conclusions in favour of recombinant products.