Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Induction of final follicular maturation and early luteinization in women undergoing ovulation induction for assisted reproduction treatment—recombinant HCG versus urinary HCG

Induction of final follicular maturation and early luteinization in women undergoing ovulation... Abstract This multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, parallel-group study compared the efficacy and safety of recombinant human chorionic gonadotrophin (rHCG) (Ovidrel®) and urinary HCG (uHCG) (Profasi®) for inducing final follicular maturation and early luteinization in women undergoing ovulation induction for assisted reproduction treatment. Following long down-regulation and stimulation with recombinant human FSH (rFSH) (Gonal-F®), a total of 190 women received a single, s.c. injection of either 250 μg rHCG or 5000 IU uHCG. For evaluable patients (n = 172), the mean number of oocytes retrieved per patient (primary efficacy endpoint) was 11.6 for rHCG and 10.6 for uHCG (not significant). The mean number of mature oocytes was statistically higher (P = 0.027) for the rHCG group than the uHCG (9.4 versus 7.1). Serum progesterone concentrations on day 1 and days 6–7 post-HCG, and serum HCG concentrations at all post-HCG time points were statistically significantly in favour of rHCG. The clinical pregnancy rate was somewhat higher (not significant) in the rHCG group (33 versus 25%) as was the live birth rate (27 versus 23%, not significant). Both treatments were well tolerated, though the incidence of adverse events was significantly higher in the uHCG group (45.1 versus 22.7%, P = 0.0004). The incidence of injection-site reactions was significantly lower in the rHCG group (P = 0.0001). In conclusion, for triggering ovulation, rHCG seems to have significant advantages compared with uHCG in terms of number of mature oocytes retrieved, luteal progesterone and local tolerance. follicular maturation, IVF, ovulation induction, rHCG, uHCG Introduction Human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) is produced by the trophoblasts as early as 6 days post-conception, and stimulates the corpus luteum and early feto–placental endocrine function. Placental HCG is a glycoprotein from the same family as the pituitary gonadotrophins (FSH and LH), and bears marked structural similarity to LH. This is reflected functionally by the fact that both hormones bind to the same receptor (Pierce and Parsons, 1981). Due to its similarity to LH, urine-derived HCG (uHCG) has been used clinically in both men and women for around 40 years. In hypogonadotrophic men, in combination with other gonadotrophins, it is used to stimulate testicular endocrine function. In women, it was used initially to trigger ovulation and luteinization in anovulatory or oligo-anovulatory patients. For the last 20 years it has also been used in women undergoing ovulation induction for assisted reproduction treatment, to bring about final ovarian maturation and to support the corpus luteum. Modern assisted reproduction treatment protocols commonly use long-acting gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists for pituitary down-regulation, which suppress endogenous gonadotrophin production, improving folliculogenesis and inhibiting the endogenous mid-cycle LH surge. This has resulted in fewer cancelled cycles, higher numbers of oocytes and more pregnancies (Smitz et al., 1987; Loumaye, 1990; Hughes et al., 1992). In these women, therefore, uHCG is used as a surrogate LH surge. In some countries, uHCG is also used in women who are at risk of recurrent miscarriage or threatened abortion. Despite the widespread use of uHCG, commercial preparations suffer from the same disadvantages as other urine-derived gonadotrophins. Namely, they require the collection of vast quantities of urine—a poor quality starting material—leading to unreliable supply and, perhaps most importantly, batch-to-batch inconsistency. Studies with other urinary-derived gonadotrophin preparations (e.g. FSH) have shown that this inconsistency can lead to undesirable variations in response, not just between patients, but also within the same patient from cycle to cycle (Polson et al., 1987). Additionally, contamination of preparations by non-HCG proteins may lead to unpredictable, adverse immunological reactions (Albano, 1996; Whitmann-Elia, 1998). The advent of recombinant DNA technology has now permitted the development of a recombinant form of HCG (rHCG), which is very pure, and whose production is independent of urine collection. It is produced in genetically engineered Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells, into which the genes encoding for the α and β subunits of HCG have been introduced (Recombinant human FSH product development group, 1998). Pre-clinical studies in monkeys and rats have confirmed the safety of rHCG (Ares-Serono International, Geneva, Switzerland, data on file). Preliminary clinical studies in volunteers have also shown the product to be well tolerated and have demonstrated that the pharmacokinetic profile of rHCG is similar to that of uHCG. Both show linearity over a 500–20 000 IU dose and a terminal elimination half-life of ~30 h (Ares-Serono International, data on file). Traditionally, urine-derived HCG is calibrated in terms of biological activity with an in-vivo bioassay (rat seminal vesicle weight gain). The biological activity of rHCG has been assessed and the consistency of the production process has allowed the definition of a constant relationship between the protein mass of rHCG (expressed in μg) and its biological activity. The conclusion was that 250 μg rHCG correspond to ~5000 IU uHCG. The use of other recombinant gonadotrophins suggests that these products may have a better bioefficiency than urinary-derived products, in women undergoing assisted reproduction treatment (Out et al., 1996; Daya and Gunby, 1999). This may also be the case with rHCG (Penarrubia et al., 1999). The aims of this study were to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rHCG and uHCG, both administered s.c. for inducing final oocyte maturation and initiation of follicular luteinization. The study was carried out in women who had undergone pituitary desensitization in preparation for IVF and embryo transfer. Materials and methods Patient selection Patients were recruited between February 1995 and October 1996. Pre-menopausal, non-pregnant women, aged 20–38 years, were eligible for the study if they satisfied the following criteria: (i) infertility attributable to any of the following – a tubal factor, American Fertility Society grade I or II endometriosis, severe male factor [for intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) patients only] or unexplained factor; (ii) a male partner with semen analysis within the past 6 months showing acceptable values of seminal parameters, defined as >10×106 spermatozoa/ml, >20% with linear progression and normal morphology, or severe male factor provided ICSI was performed, or an oocyte fertilization rate ≥50% during any previous assisted reproduction treatment attempt; (iii) not more than three previous assisted reproduction treatment attempts; (iv) no assisted reproduction treatment attempts for at least two full menstrual cycles; (v) regular, spontaneous menstrual cycles of 25–35 days; (vi) acceptable follicular phase serum concentrations of FSH (≤12 IU/l), LH (≤13.5 IU/l), prolactin (≤800 mIU/l) and testosterone (≤3.5 nmol/l); (vii) body mass index (BMI) ≤30 kg/m2; (viii) presence of both ovaries and normal uterine cavity; (ix) no treatment with clomiphene or gonadotrophins in the 2 months prior to the study; and (x) willing to participate in the study and comply with procedures. All patients gave their written informed consent and were not participating in any other clinical trial. Patients were excluded from the study if they had (i) had an extra-uterine pregnancy in the previous 3 months; (ii) a previous IVF or gamete intra-Fallopian transfer (GIFT) failure due to poor response to gonadotrophins or a problem of sperm fertilization; (iii) polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS); (iv) a previous history of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS); (v) abnormal gynaecological bleeding of unknown origin; (vi) a male partner with leukospermia (>2×106/ml) or clinical signs of infection detected in a semen analysis within the last 2 months; (vii) a previous history of intolerance to any of the agents used in the study; or (viii) a clinically significant condition/disease or active substance abuse. Concomitant medication for an existing condition or for an inter-current illness was allowed at the discretion of the investigator, though other hormonal treatments, anti-inflammatory medication and psychotropic agents with a known effect on ovulation (e.g. neuroleptics) were to be avoided. Patients requiring these medications were only permitted to continue in the trial at the investigator's discretion. Study design This was a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study carried out at nine centres throughout Europe and in Israel. The objectives of the study were to compare the efficacy and safety of Ovidrel® (rHCG, Laboratoires Serono SA, Geneva, Switzerland) with Profasi® (uHCG, Laboratoires Serono), both administered s.c., during one cycle of ovulation induction for IVF/ICSI. The study was conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Independent Ethics Committees of the participating centres. Drug administration Patients underwent pituitary desensitization with 400 μg intranasal nafarelin (Monsanto Searle, Bucks, UK), twice daily, for 10–25 days, starting in accordance with the centre's own practice. Pituitary desensitization was confirmed by an ultrasound scan (no evidence of ovarian activity, endometrial thickness <10 mm) and oestradiol concentrations (≤50 pg/ml). Recombinant FSH (Gonal-F®; Laboratoires Serono, Geneva, Switzerland) treatment was initiated after down-regulation was confirmed, and was administered once daily as a subcutaneous injection. The starting dose was in accordance with each centre's normal practice and the history of the patient (2–6×75 IU ampoules, 150–450 IU/day). The dose could be adjusted according to ovarian response as judged by ultrasound and by plasma oestradiol concentrations, but could not exceed a dose of 450 IU/day up to a maximum cumulative dose of 7500 IU. HCG (either rHCG or uHCG) was administered to the patient within 24 h after the last dose of rFHS and nafarelin, when the following criteria were met: at least one follicle with a mean diameter of ≥18 mm plus at least two others with mean diameters of 16 mm, and oestradiol concentrations within the acceptable range for the number of follicles present (~150 pg/ml per follicle, i.e. 540 pmol/ml per follicle). Provided the ovarian response was not excessive, each patient received two s.c. injections: either 250 μg rHCG (vial) plus uHCG placebo (ampoule) or 5000 IU uHCG (ampoule) plus rHCG placebo (vial). Micronized natural progesterone (600 mg/day) was administered by the vaginal route as luteal phase support, starting after oocyte retrieval. Progesterone treatment was continued until menstruation or for at least the first 3 weeks after diagnosis of pregnancy. Oocyte retrieval and fertilization Oocytes were retrieved and counted 34–38 h after HCG administration. The cumulus oophorus maturity (very immature, immature, mature, very mature, post-mature or luteinized) was assessed and at selected centres, where ICSI was to be performed, the cumulus cells were removed and an assessment of oocyte nuclear maturity (germinal vesicle, metaphase I, metaphase II, atretic or degenerative) was made. Oocytes were fertilized in vitro, and the numbers of one pronuclear (1PN), 2PN and multipronucleate eggs on day 1 after oocyte retrieval were recorded. On days 2 or 3, the number of blastomeres, embryo grading and the outcome of each embryo (transferred, frozen or discarded) were recorded. Up to three embryos were replaced, 2–3 days after oocyte retrieval. Measures of efficacy The primary efficacy endpoint was the number of oocytes retrieved per patient following HCG administration. Additionally, the following secondary endpoints were recorded: number of patients who received HCG with at least one oocyte retrieved, number of oocytes retrieved per number of follicles >10 mm diameter on the day of HCG, number of mature oocytes, number of 2PN fertilized oocytes, number of 2PN cleaved embryos, serum progesterone and HCG concentrations on day 1 post-HCG, on the day of oocyte retrieval, on the day of embryo transfer and on day 6–7 post-HCG, implantation rate per embryo transferred, luteal phase endometrial thickness, number of biochemical and clinical pregnancies, number of multiple pregnancies, abortion rate and number of live births. Safety evaluations Physical examination and clinical laboratory measurements, adverse events (including incidence and severity of injection-site reactions, OHSS and development of antibodies to HCG), premature discontinuations and concomitant medications were summarized for all patients who took medication in this study. Adverse events were recorded on the case report form (CRF) on the basis of the patient's or physician's observations and coded using the World Health Organization (WHO) assisted reproduction technology system (WHO Adverse Reaction Terminology, 1996). An adverse event was defined as an undesirable medical experience, whether considered as related or not to the investigational product, which represented an adverse change from the patient's pretreatment condition. An adverse event was classified as serious if it was fatal or life-threatening, was permanently disabling, required inpatient or prolonged hospitalization, or was a congenital anomaly, cancer or overdose. A treatment-related adverse event was one that was judged by the investigator to be probably or possibly related to the study drug. Patient withdrawals Patients could be withdrawn from the study at any time for the following reasons: poor response to the stimulation protocol, not meeting the criteria for pituitary suppression after 25 days of nafarelin administration, at risk of OHSS, a serious adverse event, a protocol violation, non-compliance, an administrative reason, discovery of ineligibility, pregnancy, or at the patient's or physician's own request. Sample size and statistical methods A 90% confidence interval (CI) was used to display the difference in the mean numbers of oocytes retrieved between the treatment groups. The clinical equivalence of rHCG and uHCG was declared if the limits of the 90% CI fell within the prespecified range of ±3 oocytes. A total of 172 patients was required to demonstrate this equivalence with a probability of 97.5%. Statistical analyses were performed on the following defined populations: `all patients' population (those who received HCG, regardless of adherence to protocol), and the `evaluable patients' population (those in the all patients population who were not considered to be major protocol violators). All analyses were performed using the SAS version 6.12 statistical package. The comparability of the two treatment groups at baseline was checked for all demographic, medical history and clinical examination data, and both this and the efficacy data were evaluated using summary statistics (n, mean, SD, median and range for continuous variables and frequencies and percentages for categorical data). Binary outcomes were analysed by logistic regression or Fisher's exact test; continuous variables were analysed by t-tests, analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) or analysis of variance (ANOVA) on raw or ranked data. Results In total, 210 patients were recruited into the study, all of whom received at least one dose of nafarelin. Down-regulation was achieved in 205 patients who were then randomized to receive rFSH and HCG. Following treatment with rFSH, 190 women received HCG (97, rHCG; 93, uHCG) (`all patients population'). Fifteen patients did not receive HCG. The most common reason for not receiving HCG was poor response to ovarian stimulation (four rHCG; two uHCG). After elimination of major protocol violators, 172 patients who received HCG constituted the `evaluable patients population' (88, rHCG; 84, uHCG). The two treatment groups were generally comparable for demographic and baseline characteristics. Of the 190 patients treated with HCG, 118 had primary infertility (62%). The mean infertility duration was 4 years and ranged from 1 to 15 years. There were no significant differences in the type or duration of infertility between the two treatment groups. Tubal factors (79 patients, 42%), male factors (62 patients, 33%) and `unexplained' (54 patients, 28%) were the main causes of infertility and endometriosis (15 patients, 8%) was the other cause noted. In total, 171 patients noted only one factor (67 tubal, 49 unknown, 46 male, nine endometriosis) and 19 had two or more causes (seven tubal + male, six unknown + male, one endometriosis + male, four tubal + endometriosis, one tubal + endometriosis + male). Menstrual cycles were regular for all patients except for eight (five rHCG, three uHCG). Cycle length varied between 24 and 46 days. There was no difference between the two treatment groups in the number of patients who had had a previous non-assisted reproduction treatment pregnancy or a previous miscarriage. A total of 66 patients had had at least one pregnancy. A total of 74 patients had had at least one assisted reproduction treatment attempt and there were 123 attempts in all. There was a slight, statistically significant (t-test, P = 0.035) difference between the two treatment groups in the number of patients who had a previous assisted reproduction treatment attempt: 35 patients treated with rHCG had an average of 1.9 assisted reproduction treatment attempts, while 39 patients treated with uHCG had an average of 1.5 attempts. There were no differences between treatment groups in relation to stimulation with rFSH. For the rHCG and uHCG groups respectively, mean rFSH treatment duration was 10.7 versus 10.8 days; total rFSH dose was 2263.1 versus 2285.9 IU and the number of 75 IU rFSH ampoules used was 30.2 versus 30.5. Oocyte retrieval and fertilization In total, 186 out of 190 patients had oocytes successfully retrieved. Oocytes were not obtained in four patients (2%) (three rHCG; one uHCG). Comparable numbers of oocytes were retrieved per patient in each treatment group. For the evaluable patients population (n = 172), the mean number of oocytes retrieved per patient (primary efficacy variable) was 11.6 in the rHCG group (n = 88) versus 10.6 in the uHCG group (n = 84) (Table I). The two-sided 90% CI (–0.841, +1.515) fell within the limits set for the study (–3, +3), thus confirming the equivalence of the two treatments. A similar result was obtained for the all patients population (n = 190). Again, the 90% CI fell within the pre-defined limits of the study (see Table I). A similar proportion of patients in each treatment group had at least one oocyte retrieved; 86/88 rHCG patients (98%) versus 84/84 uHCG patients (100%), and the mean ratio of oocytes retrieved per number of follicles >10 mm diameter on the day of HCG was 1.0 in each group. Most oocytes retrieved for ICSI were categorized as mature (i.e. metaphase I or II). For all patients for whom the assessment of oocyte nuclear maturity was done, the mean number of mature oocytes was statistically higher (P = 0.027) for the rHCG group: 9.4 versus 7.1. However, the difference between the two treatment groups in the proportion of mature oocytes compared to the total number of oocytes retrieved did not reach statistical significance (89.1 versus 84.8% for the rHCG and uHCG groups respectively; not significant). In relation to fertilization, the mean numbers of 2PN fertilized oocytes and 2PN cleaved embryos respectively were 6.2 and 5.4 in the rHCG group compared with 5.9 and 4.7 in the uHCG group. The difference between the two treatments was not statistically significant. Serum progesterone and HCG concentrations The mean serum progesterone and HCG concentrations, for the evaluable patients population of both treatment groups, on day 1 post-HCG, on the day of oocyte retrieval and on the day of embryo transfer and on day 6–7 post-HCG are shown in Figure 1. Statistical differences were recorded between treatment groups in favour of rHCG for mean progesterone concentrations at two time points; on day 1 (rHCG, 30.1 nmol/l versus uHCG, 23.3 nmol/l, P = 0.04) and on day 6–7 (rHCG, 391.9 nmol/l versus uHCG, 315.9 nmol/l, P = 0.03) post-HCG. For HCG, there were statistical differences between treatment groups in favour of rHCG at all time points (see Figure 1); the greatest statistical difference in mean HCG concentration was recorded on the day of embryo transfer (rHCG, 2.1 μg/l versus 1.6 μg/l, P = 0.0001). It is noteworthy that the number of growing follicles (≥11 mm diameter) on the day of HCG administration was comparable in the two treatment groups: 12.0 versus 11.6 for rHCG and uHCG respectively. Embryo transfer and implantation Of the 190 patients who received HCG, 166 underwent embryo transfer; 85 in the rHCG group and 81 who received uHCG. The most common reason for patients not undergoing embryo transfer was a lack of fertilization (eight rHCG; 10 uHCG). For the evaluable patients population, the mean implantation rate appeared to be higher in the patients receiving rHCG (20 versus 17%, not statistically significant). There was no difference between treatment groups in luteal phase endometrial thickness (11.7 mm, rHCG; 11.8 mm, uHCG, evaluable patient population). Pregnancies and outcome As only two of 18 patients (one in each group) who were non-evaluable became pregnant, pregnancies were only analysed for the all patients population. A summary of the pregnancies obtained during the study and their outcome is given in Table II. Overall, there was a good pregnancy rate; a total of 66 pregnancies was recorded among the 190 patients (34.7%), of which 55 (83.3%) were clinical pregnancies and 11 (16.7%) were biochemical. Although the percentage of clinical pregnancies appeared higher in the patients treated with rHCG (33 versus 25%), this difference was not statistically significant. A total of 49/55 clinical pregnancies (89%) was ongoing at the week 5–6 post-HCG ultrasound scan. There had been three miscarriages (rHCG), one termination (rHCG) and two extra-uterine pregnancies (Table II). In addition, one rHCG patient had a late miscarriage 7 weeks after her scan. Overall, the abortion rate was 13%, and there were no statistical differences between treatment groups. There were 47 deliveries, in which 63 babies were born. Of these, 26 deliveries (18 singleton and eight twin) occurred in rHCG patients (34 babies) and 21 (13 singleton and eight twin) in uHCG patients (29 babies). One rHCG patient gave birth to a baby with a congenital abnormality who died, and the outcome of one pregnancy was unknown as the patient was lost to follow-up. Safety Overall, the two drugs were well tolerated. After administration of HCG, 22/97 patients in the rHCG group (22.7%) reported 32 adverse events compared with 42/93 patients in the uHCG group (45.1%) reporting 65 events. This difference was statistically significant in favour of rHCG (P = 0.0004). Most of these events (93%) were judged as mild to moderate in severity. Of these 97 events, 80 were judged possibly or probably treatment-related. The most common treatment-related events, in both groups, were injection-site disorders that were reported by the patients, mainly pain, inflammation and bruising. In the rHCG group, only seven patients (7.2%) experienced an injection-site event that was probably treatment-related, compared with 28 patients (30.1%) in the uHCG group. This difference between groups was highly significant (P = 0.0001). Eleven patients, six (6.2%) in the rHCG group and five (5.4%) in the uHCG group, experienced a serious adverse event. Serious treatment-related OHSS was reported for two patients (one in each group); all other serious adverse events were judged as not related to treatment. The incidence of OHSS was similar in both groups; 13 patients were reported to have suffered from this, seven (7.2%) receiving rHCG and six (6.4%) receiving uHCG. Overall, the injections were well tolerated by patients, though a greater proportion of those who took uHCG compared with those taking rHCG reported local reactions (particularly pain and inflammation). In the uHCG group, 35/93 injections (38%) led to a local reaction compared with 13/97 injections in the rHCG group (13%). This difference was statistically significant in favour of rHCG (P = 0.0001). Moreover, rHCG did not appear to result in more local reactions than placebo, in contrast to uHCG, which did. There were no clinically significant changes in physical examination parameters or in routine clinical laboratory measurements and there were no statistical differences between groups. In total, 152/190 patients who received HCG had samples assayed for anti-HCG antibodies; all were found negative. Discussion This study compared the efficacy and safety of rHCG with that of uHCG for induction of follicular maturation and early luteinization in a group of women undergoing ovulation induction for assisted reproduction treatment. In these patients, HCG is used to mimic the spontaneous LH surge. Patients underwent pituitary desensitization using a long GnRH agonist protocol, followed by stimulation with rFSH, prior to receiving a single s.c. injection of HCG. This study, involving patients treated with recombinant gonadotrophins, is one of the largest of its kind to be published. This study was designed to show equivalence between the two HCG products, and the primary efficacy endpoint (mean number of oocytes/patient) indicated that rHCG was, indeed, as effective as uHCG. However, it is interesting to note that rHCG treatment resulted in statistically higher numbers of mature oocytes, statistically higher day 1 and days 6–7 progesterone concentrations and statistically higher HCG concentrations at all timepoints, post-HCG. The observation of lower oocyte nuclear maturity in the uHCG group, despite administration of similar doses, is not definitely understood. Urine-derived HCG is known to contain HCG degradation products (Wehmann and Nisula, 1980). This may suggest that HCG degradation products in the urinary preparation have subtle interference with the active HCG molecules and therefore with the HCG-induced cumulus–oocyte maturation. The difference observed in progesterone concentrations does not seem to be associated with the number of corpora lutea as indicated by the number of follicles on the day of HCG administration. This may be associated with the slightly higher HCG concentrations reported in the rHCG group, or as suggested above to a difference in the biological activity of rHCG in human compared to that of uHCG (Penarrubia et al., 1999). Furthermore, clinical pregnancy rates were apparently higher in those patients who had received rHCG (33 versus 25%), but this difference was not statistically significant. The risk of OHSS did not appear to differ between the two products, with a similar, low incidence in both treatment groups. Most patients reported good tolerance to the two HCG preparations and any side-effects were generally mild to moderate in severity. Nevertheless, the incidence of side-effects was statistically higher in the uHCG group (45 versus 23%, P = 0.0004). Many of these adverse effects were injection-site-related, occurring far more extensively in the uHCG patients; 38% of injections led to a local reaction in uHCG patients, compared with only 13% in the rHCG group (P = 0.0001). Although urinary-derived gonadotrophins are therapeutically effective, the non-hormonal proteins contained in these preparations are known to cause severe local and systemic immunogenic reactions. In women who have suffered such reactions, following injection of urinary-derived gonadotrophins—human menopausal gonadotrophin, for example—the administration of rFSH has been associated with good tolerance at the site of injection and reduced immunogenicity (Albano et al., 1996; Whitman-Elia et al., 1998), although relative costs of rHCG versus uHCG were not specifically addressed in this study. The improved tolerance of recombinant products, including HCG, is likely to lead to higher patient acceptability, which is a clear, clinical advantage. In conclusion, therefore, this study indicates that rHCG is effective in inducing follicular maturation and early luteinization. Recombinant HCG is associated with more mature oocytes, higher progesterone concentration on days 1 and 6–7 and improved tolerance and is thus likely to have higher patient acceptability. Table I. Mean number of oocytes retrieved per patient (primary efficacy variable) for the `evaluable patients' (n = 172) and `all patients' (n = 190) populations after a single s.c. injection of 250 μg rHCG or 5000 IU uHCG   rHCG    uHCG  Evaluable patients population (n = 172)        Number of patients  88    84  Mean number of oocytes/patient (SD)  11.6 (6.5)    10.6 (5.9)  90% confidence interval    –0.8417, +1.515    All patients population (n = 190)        Number of patients  97    93  Mean number of oocytes/patient (SD)  11.4 (6.5)    10.7 (6.1)  90% confidence interval    –1.206, +1.183      rHCG    uHCG  Evaluable patients population (n = 172)        Number of patients  88    84  Mean number of oocytes/patient (SD)  11.6 (6.5)    10.6 (5.9)  90% confidence interval    –0.8417, +1.515    All patients population (n = 190)        Number of patients  97    93  Mean number of oocytes/patient (SD)  11.4 (6.5)    10.7 (6.1)  90% confidence interval    –1.206, +1.183    View Large Table II. Number of pregnancies (percentage of patients) and outcomes during the study for the all patients population. There were no statistical differences between groups, therefore, P values are not shown   rHCG (n = 97)  uHCG (n = 93)  Total (n = 190)  Values in parentheses are percentages.  Number of pregnancies        All  36 (37.1)  30 (32.2)  66 (34.7)  Biochemical  4 (4.1)  7 (7.5)  11 (5.8)  Clinical  32 (33.0)  23 (24.7)  55 (28.9)  (multiple)  9 (9.3)  9 (9.7)  18 (9.5)  Aborted pregnancies        Miscarriage  3 (3.1)  0  3 (1.6)  Terminated  1 (1.0)  0  1 (0.5)  Extra-uterine  1 (1.0)  1 (1.1)  2 (1.1)  Late miscarriage  1 (1.0)  0  1 (0.5)  Lost to follow-up  0  1 (1.1)  1 (0.5)  Deliveries        Total  26 (26.8)  21 (22.6)  47 (24.7)  Singleton  18 (18.6)  13 (14.0)  31 (16.3)  Twin  8 (8.2)  8 (8.6)  16 (8.4)    rHCG (n = 97)  uHCG (n = 93)  Total (n = 190)  Values in parentheses are percentages.  Number of pregnancies        All  36 (37.1)  30 (32.2)  66 (34.7)  Biochemical  4 (4.1)  7 (7.5)  11 (5.8)  Clinical  32 (33.0)  23 (24.7)  55 (28.9)  (multiple)  9 (9.3)  9 (9.7)  18 (9.5)  Aborted pregnancies        Miscarriage  3 (3.1)  0  3 (1.6)  Terminated  1 (1.0)  0  1 (0.5)  Extra-uterine  1 (1.0)  1 (1.1)  2 (1.1)  Late miscarriage  1 (1.0)  0  1 (0.5)  Lost to follow-up  0  1 (1.1)  1 (0.5)  Deliveries        Total  26 (26.8)  21 (22.6)  47 (24.7)  Singleton  18 (18.6)  13 (14.0)  31 (16.3)  Twin  8 (8.2)  8 (8.6)  16 (8.4)  View Large Figure 1. View largeDownload slide (a) Mean serum progesterone concentrations, (b) mean serum HCG concentrations on day 1 post-HCG, the day of oocyte retrieval, the day of embryo transfer and days 6–7 post-HCG, for the rHCG (n = 88) or uHCG (n = 84) evaluable patients population. Figure 1. View largeDownload slide (a) Mean serum progesterone concentrations, (b) mean serum HCG concentrations on day 1 post-HCG, the day of oocyte retrieval, the day of embryo transfer and days 6–7 post-HCG, for the rHCG (n = 88) or uHCG (n = 84) evaluable patients population. The following staff from Ares-Serono Reproductive Health Clinical Development Unit contributed to the conception, conduct and analysis of the study: L.Maislisch, D.Warne, S.Bologna, E.Loumaye. The following clinical investigators participated in the conception and conduct of the study: J.Bellaisch-Allart, Service de Gynécologie et Obstétrique, Hôpital Jean Rostand, Sèvres, France; P.Dellenbach, Service de Gynécologie et Obstétrique, 19, rue Louis Pasteur, Schiltigheim, France; F.A.Leidenberger, Gemeinschaftspraxis, Hamburg, Germany; M.Scholtes, Gemeinschaftspraxis, Dusseldorf, Germany; R.Fischer, Fertility Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany; B.Fisch, IVF Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beilison Medical Center, Petah-Tikva, Israel; G.B.Melis, Instituto di Ginecologia, Ostetricia & Fisiopatologia della Umana, Università di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy; J.L.H.Evers, Academisch Ziekenhuis Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands; M.Wikland, Fertilitetcentrum AB, Gothenburg, Sweden; J.Mills, Assisted Conception Unit, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, UK The authors are grateful to P.Engrand, S.Ince, A.Piazzi, J.Illingworth, A.Kok, S.Roten, M.Sauvage, G.Ursicino, A.Zrener and B.Forslund for their help in the conception, conduct, and analysis of this study. This work was supported by Ares-Serono International (Geneva, Switzerland). References Albano, C., Smitz, J., Camus, M. et al. ( 1996) Pregnancy and birth in an in-vitro fertilization cycle after controlled ovarian stimulation in a woman with a history of allergic reactions to human menopausal gonadotrophin. Hum. Reprod.  , 11, 1632–1634. Google Scholar Daya, S. and Gunby, J. ( 1999) Recombinant versus urinary follicle stimulating hormone for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction. Hum. Reprod.  , 14, 2200–2206. Google Scholar Hughes, E.G., Fedorkow, D.M., Daya, S. et al. ( 1992) The routine use of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonists prior to in vitro fertilization and gamete intrafallopian transfer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Fertil. Steril.  , 58, 888–896. Google Scholar Loumaye, E. ( 1990) The control of endogenous secretion of LH by gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonists during ovarian hyperstimulation for in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Hum. Reprod.  , 5, 357–376. Google Scholar Loumaye, E., Martineau, I., Piazzi, A. et al. ( 1996) Clinical assessment of human gonadotrophins produced by recombinant DNA technology. Hum. Reprod.  , 11, 95–107. Google Scholar Out, H.J., Mannaerts, B.M.J.L., Driessen, S.G.A.J. and Coelingh-Bennink, H.J.T. ( 1996) Recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH; Puregon) in assisted reproduction: more oocytes, more pregnancies. Results from five comparative studies. Hum. Reprod.  , 2, 162–171. Google Scholar Penarrubia, J., Balasch, J., Fabregues, F. et al. ( 1999) Recurrent empty follicle syndrome successfully treated with recombinant human chorionic gonadotrophin. Hum. Reprod.  , 14, 1703–1706. Google Scholar Pierce, J.G. and Parsons, T.F. ( 1981) Glycoprotein hormones: structure and function. Annu. Rev. Biochem.  , 50, 465–495. Google Scholar Polson, D.W., Mason, H.D., Saldahna, M.B.Y. and Franks, S. ( 1987) Ovulation of a single dominant follicle during treatment with low-dose pulsatile FSH in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Clin. Endocrinol.  , 26, 205–212. Google Scholar Recombinant Human FSH Product Development Group ( 1998) Recombinant follicle stimulating hormone: Development of the first biotechnology product for the treatment of infertility. Hum. Reprod. Update  , 4, 862–881 Google Scholar Smitz, J., Devroey, P., Braeckmans, P. et al. ( 1987) Management of failed cycles in an IVF-GIFT programme with the combination of a GnRH analogue and hMG. Hum. Reprod.  , 2, 309–314. Google Scholar Wehmann R.E. and Nisula B.C. ( 1980) Characterization of a discrete degradation product of the human chorionic gonadotropin β-subunit in humans. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.  , 51, 101–105. Google Scholar Whitman-Elia, G.F., Banks, K. and O'Dea, L.S. ( 1998) Recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone in a patient hypersensitive to urinary-derived gonadotrophins. Gynecol. Endocrinol.  , 12, 209–212. Google Scholar World Health Organization (1996) Adverse Reaction Terminology, version 2. Who Collaborating Center for International Drug Monitoring, Uppsala, Sweden. Google Scholar © European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Human Reproduction Oxford University Press

Induction of final follicular maturation and early luteinization in women undergoing ovulation induction for assisted reproduction treatment—recombinant HCG versus urinary HCG

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/endocrinology-induction-of-final-follicular-maturation-and-early-gVviJyyt8v

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology
ISSN
0268-1161
eISSN
1460-2350
DOI
10.1093/humrep/15.7.1446
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract This multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, parallel-group study compared the efficacy and safety of recombinant human chorionic gonadotrophin (rHCG) (Ovidrel®) and urinary HCG (uHCG) (Profasi®) for inducing final follicular maturation and early luteinization in women undergoing ovulation induction for assisted reproduction treatment. Following long down-regulation and stimulation with recombinant human FSH (rFSH) (Gonal-F®), a total of 190 women received a single, s.c. injection of either 250 μg rHCG or 5000 IU uHCG. For evaluable patients (n = 172), the mean number of oocytes retrieved per patient (primary efficacy endpoint) was 11.6 for rHCG and 10.6 for uHCG (not significant). The mean number of mature oocytes was statistically higher (P = 0.027) for the rHCG group than the uHCG (9.4 versus 7.1). Serum progesterone concentrations on day 1 and days 6–7 post-HCG, and serum HCG concentrations at all post-HCG time points were statistically significantly in favour of rHCG. The clinical pregnancy rate was somewhat higher (not significant) in the rHCG group (33 versus 25%) as was the live birth rate (27 versus 23%, not significant). Both treatments were well tolerated, though the incidence of adverse events was significantly higher in the uHCG group (45.1 versus 22.7%, P = 0.0004). The incidence of injection-site reactions was significantly lower in the rHCG group (P = 0.0001). In conclusion, for triggering ovulation, rHCG seems to have significant advantages compared with uHCG in terms of number of mature oocytes retrieved, luteal progesterone and local tolerance. follicular maturation, IVF, ovulation induction, rHCG, uHCG Introduction Human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) is produced by the trophoblasts as early as 6 days post-conception, and stimulates the corpus luteum and early feto–placental endocrine function. Placental HCG is a glycoprotein from the same family as the pituitary gonadotrophins (FSH and LH), and bears marked structural similarity to LH. This is reflected functionally by the fact that both hormones bind to the same receptor (Pierce and Parsons, 1981). Due to its similarity to LH, urine-derived HCG (uHCG) has been used clinically in both men and women for around 40 years. In hypogonadotrophic men, in combination with other gonadotrophins, it is used to stimulate testicular endocrine function. In women, it was used initially to trigger ovulation and luteinization in anovulatory or oligo-anovulatory patients. For the last 20 years it has also been used in women undergoing ovulation induction for assisted reproduction treatment, to bring about final ovarian maturation and to support the corpus luteum. Modern assisted reproduction treatment protocols commonly use long-acting gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists for pituitary down-regulation, which suppress endogenous gonadotrophin production, improving folliculogenesis and inhibiting the endogenous mid-cycle LH surge. This has resulted in fewer cancelled cycles, higher numbers of oocytes and more pregnancies (Smitz et al., 1987; Loumaye, 1990; Hughes et al., 1992). In these women, therefore, uHCG is used as a surrogate LH surge. In some countries, uHCG is also used in women who are at risk of recurrent miscarriage or threatened abortion. Despite the widespread use of uHCG, commercial preparations suffer from the same disadvantages as other urine-derived gonadotrophins. Namely, they require the collection of vast quantities of urine—a poor quality starting material—leading to unreliable supply and, perhaps most importantly, batch-to-batch inconsistency. Studies with other urinary-derived gonadotrophin preparations (e.g. FSH) have shown that this inconsistency can lead to undesirable variations in response, not just between patients, but also within the same patient from cycle to cycle (Polson et al., 1987). Additionally, contamination of preparations by non-HCG proteins may lead to unpredictable, adverse immunological reactions (Albano, 1996; Whitmann-Elia, 1998). The advent of recombinant DNA technology has now permitted the development of a recombinant form of HCG (rHCG), which is very pure, and whose production is independent of urine collection. It is produced in genetically engineered Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells, into which the genes encoding for the α and β subunits of HCG have been introduced (Recombinant human FSH product development group, 1998). Pre-clinical studies in monkeys and rats have confirmed the safety of rHCG (Ares-Serono International, Geneva, Switzerland, data on file). Preliminary clinical studies in volunteers have also shown the product to be well tolerated and have demonstrated that the pharmacokinetic profile of rHCG is similar to that of uHCG. Both show linearity over a 500–20 000 IU dose and a terminal elimination half-life of ~30 h (Ares-Serono International, data on file). Traditionally, urine-derived HCG is calibrated in terms of biological activity with an in-vivo bioassay (rat seminal vesicle weight gain). The biological activity of rHCG has been assessed and the consistency of the production process has allowed the definition of a constant relationship between the protein mass of rHCG (expressed in μg) and its biological activity. The conclusion was that 250 μg rHCG correspond to ~5000 IU uHCG. The use of other recombinant gonadotrophins suggests that these products may have a better bioefficiency than urinary-derived products, in women undergoing assisted reproduction treatment (Out et al., 1996; Daya and Gunby, 1999). This may also be the case with rHCG (Penarrubia et al., 1999). The aims of this study were to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rHCG and uHCG, both administered s.c. for inducing final oocyte maturation and initiation of follicular luteinization. The study was carried out in women who had undergone pituitary desensitization in preparation for IVF and embryo transfer. Materials and methods Patient selection Patients were recruited between February 1995 and October 1996. Pre-menopausal, non-pregnant women, aged 20–38 years, were eligible for the study if they satisfied the following criteria: (i) infertility attributable to any of the following – a tubal factor, American Fertility Society grade I or II endometriosis, severe male factor [for intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) patients only] or unexplained factor; (ii) a male partner with semen analysis within the past 6 months showing acceptable values of seminal parameters, defined as >10×106 spermatozoa/ml, >20% with linear progression and normal morphology, or severe male factor provided ICSI was performed, or an oocyte fertilization rate ≥50% during any previous assisted reproduction treatment attempt; (iii) not more than three previous assisted reproduction treatment attempts; (iv) no assisted reproduction treatment attempts for at least two full menstrual cycles; (v) regular, spontaneous menstrual cycles of 25–35 days; (vi) acceptable follicular phase serum concentrations of FSH (≤12 IU/l), LH (≤13.5 IU/l), prolactin (≤800 mIU/l) and testosterone (≤3.5 nmol/l); (vii) body mass index (BMI) ≤30 kg/m2; (viii) presence of both ovaries and normal uterine cavity; (ix) no treatment with clomiphene or gonadotrophins in the 2 months prior to the study; and (x) willing to participate in the study and comply with procedures. All patients gave their written informed consent and were not participating in any other clinical trial. Patients were excluded from the study if they had (i) had an extra-uterine pregnancy in the previous 3 months; (ii) a previous IVF or gamete intra-Fallopian transfer (GIFT) failure due to poor response to gonadotrophins or a problem of sperm fertilization; (iii) polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS); (iv) a previous history of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS); (v) abnormal gynaecological bleeding of unknown origin; (vi) a male partner with leukospermia (>2×106/ml) or clinical signs of infection detected in a semen analysis within the last 2 months; (vii) a previous history of intolerance to any of the agents used in the study; or (viii) a clinically significant condition/disease or active substance abuse. Concomitant medication for an existing condition or for an inter-current illness was allowed at the discretion of the investigator, though other hormonal treatments, anti-inflammatory medication and psychotropic agents with a known effect on ovulation (e.g. neuroleptics) were to be avoided. Patients requiring these medications were only permitted to continue in the trial at the investigator's discretion. Study design This was a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study carried out at nine centres throughout Europe and in Israel. The objectives of the study were to compare the efficacy and safety of Ovidrel® (rHCG, Laboratoires Serono SA, Geneva, Switzerland) with Profasi® (uHCG, Laboratoires Serono), both administered s.c., during one cycle of ovulation induction for IVF/ICSI. The study was conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Independent Ethics Committees of the participating centres. Drug administration Patients underwent pituitary desensitization with 400 μg intranasal nafarelin (Monsanto Searle, Bucks, UK), twice daily, for 10–25 days, starting in accordance with the centre's own practice. Pituitary desensitization was confirmed by an ultrasound scan (no evidence of ovarian activity, endometrial thickness <10 mm) and oestradiol concentrations (≤50 pg/ml). Recombinant FSH (Gonal-F®; Laboratoires Serono, Geneva, Switzerland) treatment was initiated after down-regulation was confirmed, and was administered once daily as a subcutaneous injection. The starting dose was in accordance with each centre's normal practice and the history of the patient (2–6×75 IU ampoules, 150–450 IU/day). The dose could be adjusted according to ovarian response as judged by ultrasound and by plasma oestradiol concentrations, but could not exceed a dose of 450 IU/day up to a maximum cumulative dose of 7500 IU. HCG (either rHCG or uHCG) was administered to the patient within 24 h after the last dose of rFHS and nafarelin, when the following criteria were met: at least one follicle with a mean diameter of ≥18 mm plus at least two others with mean diameters of 16 mm, and oestradiol concentrations within the acceptable range for the number of follicles present (~150 pg/ml per follicle, i.e. 540 pmol/ml per follicle). Provided the ovarian response was not excessive, each patient received two s.c. injections: either 250 μg rHCG (vial) plus uHCG placebo (ampoule) or 5000 IU uHCG (ampoule) plus rHCG placebo (vial). Micronized natural progesterone (600 mg/day) was administered by the vaginal route as luteal phase support, starting after oocyte retrieval. Progesterone treatment was continued until menstruation or for at least the first 3 weeks after diagnosis of pregnancy. Oocyte retrieval and fertilization Oocytes were retrieved and counted 34–38 h after HCG administration. The cumulus oophorus maturity (very immature, immature, mature, very mature, post-mature or luteinized) was assessed and at selected centres, where ICSI was to be performed, the cumulus cells were removed and an assessment of oocyte nuclear maturity (germinal vesicle, metaphase I, metaphase II, atretic or degenerative) was made. Oocytes were fertilized in vitro, and the numbers of one pronuclear (1PN), 2PN and multipronucleate eggs on day 1 after oocyte retrieval were recorded. On days 2 or 3, the number of blastomeres, embryo grading and the outcome of each embryo (transferred, frozen or discarded) were recorded. Up to three embryos were replaced, 2–3 days after oocyte retrieval. Measures of efficacy The primary efficacy endpoint was the number of oocytes retrieved per patient following HCG administration. Additionally, the following secondary endpoints were recorded: number of patients who received HCG with at least one oocyte retrieved, number of oocytes retrieved per number of follicles >10 mm diameter on the day of HCG, number of mature oocytes, number of 2PN fertilized oocytes, number of 2PN cleaved embryos, serum progesterone and HCG concentrations on day 1 post-HCG, on the day of oocyte retrieval, on the day of embryo transfer and on day 6–7 post-HCG, implantation rate per embryo transferred, luteal phase endometrial thickness, number of biochemical and clinical pregnancies, number of multiple pregnancies, abortion rate and number of live births. Safety evaluations Physical examination and clinical laboratory measurements, adverse events (including incidence and severity of injection-site reactions, OHSS and development of antibodies to HCG), premature discontinuations and concomitant medications were summarized for all patients who took medication in this study. Adverse events were recorded on the case report form (CRF) on the basis of the patient's or physician's observations and coded using the World Health Organization (WHO) assisted reproduction technology system (WHO Adverse Reaction Terminology, 1996). An adverse event was defined as an undesirable medical experience, whether considered as related or not to the investigational product, which represented an adverse change from the patient's pretreatment condition. An adverse event was classified as serious if it was fatal or life-threatening, was permanently disabling, required inpatient or prolonged hospitalization, or was a congenital anomaly, cancer or overdose. A treatment-related adverse event was one that was judged by the investigator to be probably or possibly related to the study drug. Patient withdrawals Patients could be withdrawn from the study at any time for the following reasons: poor response to the stimulation protocol, not meeting the criteria for pituitary suppression after 25 days of nafarelin administration, at risk of OHSS, a serious adverse event, a protocol violation, non-compliance, an administrative reason, discovery of ineligibility, pregnancy, or at the patient's or physician's own request. Sample size and statistical methods A 90% confidence interval (CI) was used to display the difference in the mean numbers of oocytes retrieved between the treatment groups. The clinical equivalence of rHCG and uHCG was declared if the limits of the 90% CI fell within the prespecified range of ±3 oocytes. A total of 172 patients was required to demonstrate this equivalence with a probability of 97.5%. Statistical analyses were performed on the following defined populations: `all patients' population (those who received HCG, regardless of adherence to protocol), and the `evaluable patients' population (those in the all patients population who were not considered to be major protocol violators). All analyses were performed using the SAS version 6.12 statistical package. The comparability of the two treatment groups at baseline was checked for all demographic, medical history and clinical examination data, and both this and the efficacy data were evaluated using summary statistics (n, mean, SD, median and range for continuous variables and frequencies and percentages for categorical data). Binary outcomes were analysed by logistic regression or Fisher's exact test; continuous variables were analysed by t-tests, analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) or analysis of variance (ANOVA) on raw or ranked data. Results In total, 210 patients were recruited into the study, all of whom received at least one dose of nafarelin. Down-regulation was achieved in 205 patients who were then randomized to receive rFSH and HCG. Following treatment with rFSH, 190 women received HCG (97, rHCG; 93, uHCG) (`all patients population'). Fifteen patients did not receive HCG. The most common reason for not receiving HCG was poor response to ovarian stimulation (four rHCG; two uHCG). After elimination of major protocol violators, 172 patients who received HCG constituted the `evaluable patients population' (88, rHCG; 84, uHCG). The two treatment groups were generally comparable for demographic and baseline characteristics. Of the 190 patients treated with HCG, 118 had primary infertility (62%). The mean infertility duration was 4 years and ranged from 1 to 15 years. There were no significant differences in the type or duration of infertility between the two treatment groups. Tubal factors (79 patients, 42%), male factors (62 patients, 33%) and `unexplained' (54 patients, 28%) were the main causes of infertility and endometriosis (15 patients, 8%) was the other cause noted. In total, 171 patients noted only one factor (67 tubal, 49 unknown, 46 male, nine endometriosis) and 19 had two or more causes (seven tubal + male, six unknown + male, one endometriosis + male, four tubal + endometriosis, one tubal + endometriosis + male). Menstrual cycles were regular for all patients except for eight (five rHCG, three uHCG). Cycle length varied between 24 and 46 days. There was no difference between the two treatment groups in the number of patients who had had a previous non-assisted reproduction treatment pregnancy or a previous miscarriage. A total of 66 patients had had at least one pregnancy. A total of 74 patients had had at least one assisted reproduction treatment attempt and there were 123 attempts in all. There was a slight, statistically significant (t-test, P = 0.035) difference between the two treatment groups in the number of patients who had a previous assisted reproduction treatment attempt: 35 patients treated with rHCG had an average of 1.9 assisted reproduction treatment attempts, while 39 patients treated with uHCG had an average of 1.5 attempts. There were no differences between treatment groups in relation to stimulation with rFSH. For the rHCG and uHCG groups respectively, mean rFSH treatment duration was 10.7 versus 10.8 days; total rFSH dose was 2263.1 versus 2285.9 IU and the number of 75 IU rFSH ampoules used was 30.2 versus 30.5. Oocyte retrieval and fertilization In total, 186 out of 190 patients had oocytes successfully retrieved. Oocytes were not obtained in four patients (2%) (three rHCG; one uHCG). Comparable numbers of oocytes were retrieved per patient in each treatment group. For the evaluable patients population (n = 172), the mean number of oocytes retrieved per patient (primary efficacy variable) was 11.6 in the rHCG group (n = 88) versus 10.6 in the uHCG group (n = 84) (Table I). The two-sided 90% CI (–0.841, +1.515) fell within the limits set for the study (–3, +3), thus confirming the equivalence of the two treatments. A similar result was obtained for the all patients population (n = 190). Again, the 90% CI fell within the pre-defined limits of the study (see Table I). A similar proportion of patients in each treatment group had at least one oocyte retrieved; 86/88 rHCG patients (98%) versus 84/84 uHCG patients (100%), and the mean ratio of oocytes retrieved per number of follicles >10 mm diameter on the day of HCG was 1.0 in each group. Most oocytes retrieved for ICSI were categorized as mature (i.e. metaphase I or II). For all patients for whom the assessment of oocyte nuclear maturity was done, the mean number of mature oocytes was statistically higher (P = 0.027) for the rHCG group: 9.4 versus 7.1. However, the difference between the two treatment groups in the proportion of mature oocytes compared to the total number of oocytes retrieved did not reach statistical significance (89.1 versus 84.8% for the rHCG and uHCG groups respectively; not significant). In relation to fertilization, the mean numbers of 2PN fertilized oocytes and 2PN cleaved embryos respectively were 6.2 and 5.4 in the rHCG group compared with 5.9 and 4.7 in the uHCG group. The difference between the two treatments was not statistically significant. Serum progesterone and HCG concentrations The mean serum progesterone and HCG concentrations, for the evaluable patients population of both treatment groups, on day 1 post-HCG, on the day of oocyte retrieval and on the day of embryo transfer and on day 6–7 post-HCG are shown in Figure 1. Statistical differences were recorded between treatment groups in favour of rHCG for mean progesterone concentrations at two time points; on day 1 (rHCG, 30.1 nmol/l versus uHCG, 23.3 nmol/l, P = 0.04) and on day 6–7 (rHCG, 391.9 nmol/l versus uHCG, 315.9 nmol/l, P = 0.03) post-HCG. For HCG, there were statistical differences between treatment groups in favour of rHCG at all time points (see Figure 1); the greatest statistical difference in mean HCG concentration was recorded on the day of embryo transfer (rHCG, 2.1 μg/l versus 1.6 μg/l, P = 0.0001). It is noteworthy that the number of growing follicles (≥11 mm diameter) on the day of HCG administration was comparable in the two treatment groups: 12.0 versus 11.6 for rHCG and uHCG respectively. Embryo transfer and implantation Of the 190 patients who received HCG, 166 underwent embryo transfer; 85 in the rHCG group and 81 who received uHCG. The most common reason for patients not undergoing embryo transfer was a lack of fertilization (eight rHCG; 10 uHCG). For the evaluable patients population, the mean implantation rate appeared to be higher in the patients receiving rHCG (20 versus 17%, not statistically significant). There was no difference between treatment groups in luteal phase endometrial thickness (11.7 mm, rHCG; 11.8 mm, uHCG, evaluable patient population). Pregnancies and outcome As only two of 18 patients (one in each group) who were non-evaluable became pregnant, pregnancies were only analysed for the all patients population. A summary of the pregnancies obtained during the study and their outcome is given in Table II. Overall, there was a good pregnancy rate; a total of 66 pregnancies was recorded among the 190 patients (34.7%), of which 55 (83.3%) were clinical pregnancies and 11 (16.7%) were biochemical. Although the percentage of clinical pregnancies appeared higher in the patients treated with rHCG (33 versus 25%), this difference was not statistically significant. A total of 49/55 clinical pregnancies (89%) was ongoing at the week 5–6 post-HCG ultrasound scan. There had been three miscarriages (rHCG), one termination (rHCG) and two extra-uterine pregnancies (Table II). In addition, one rHCG patient had a late miscarriage 7 weeks after her scan. Overall, the abortion rate was 13%, and there were no statistical differences between treatment groups. There were 47 deliveries, in which 63 babies were born. Of these, 26 deliveries (18 singleton and eight twin) occurred in rHCG patients (34 babies) and 21 (13 singleton and eight twin) in uHCG patients (29 babies). One rHCG patient gave birth to a baby with a congenital abnormality who died, and the outcome of one pregnancy was unknown as the patient was lost to follow-up. Safety Overall, the two drugs were well tolerated. After administration of HCG, 22/97 patients in the rHCG group (22.7%) reported 32 adverse events compared with 42/93 patients in the uHCG group (45.1%) reporting 65 events. This difference was statistically significant in favour of rHCG (P = 0.0004). Most of these events (93%) were judged as mild to moderate in severity. Of these 97 events, 80 were judged possibly or probably treatment-related. The most common treatment-related events, in both groups, were injection-site disorders that were reported by the patients, mainly pain, inflammation and bruising. In the rHCG group, only seven patients (7.2%) experienced an injection-site event that was probably treatment-related, compared with 28 patients (30.1%) in the uHCG group. This difference between groups was highly significant (P = 0.0001). Eleven patients, six (6.2%) in the rHCG group and five (5.4%) in the uHCG group, experienced a serious adverse event. Serious treatment-related OHSS was reported for two patients (one in each group); all other serious adverse events were judged as not related to treatment. The incidence of OHSS was similar in both groups; 13 patients were reported to have suffered from this, seven (7.2%) receiving rHCG and six (6.4%) receiving uHCG. Overall, the injections were well tolerated by patients, though a greater proportion of those who took uHCG compared with those taking rHCG reported local reactions (particularly pain and inflammation). In the uHCG group, 35/93 injections (38%) led to a local reaction compared with 13/97 injections in the rHCG group (13%). This difference was statistically significant in favour of rHCG (P = 0.0001). Moreover, rHCG did not appear to result in more local reactions than placebo, in contrast to uHCG, which did. There were no clinically significant changes in physical examination parameters or in routine clinical laboratory measurements and there were no statistical differences between groups. In total, 152/190 patients who received HCG had samples assayed for anti-HCG antibodies; all were found negative. Discussion This study compared the efficacy and safety of rHCG with that of uHCG for induction of follicular maturation and early luteinization in a group of women undergoing ovulation induction for assisted reproduction treatment. In these patients, HCG is used to mimic the spontaneous LH surge. Patients underwent pituitary desensitization using a long GnRH agonist protocol, followed by stimulation with rFSH, prior to receiving a single s.c. injection of HCG. This study, involving patients treated with recombinant gonadotrophins, is one of the largest of its kind to be published. This study was designed to show equivalence between the two HCG products, and the primary efficacy endpoint (mean number of oocytes/patient) indicated that rHCG was, indeed, as effective as uHCG. However, it is interesting to note that rHCG treatment resulted in statistically higher numbers of mature oocytes, statistically higher day 1 and days 6–7 progesterone concentrations and statistically higher HCG concentrations at all timepoints, post-HCG. The observation of lower oocyte nuclear maturity in the uHCG group, despite administration of similar doses, is not definitely understood. Urine-derived HCG is known to contain HCG degradation products (Wehmann and Nisula, 1980). This may suggest that HCG degradation products in the urinary preparation have subtle interference with the active HCG molecules and therefore with the HCG-induced cumulus–oocyte maturation. The difference observed in progesterone concentrations does not seem to be associated with the number of corpora lutea as indicated by the number of follicles on the day of HCG administration. This may be associated with the slightly higher HCG concentrations reported in the rHCG group, or as suggested above to a difference in the biological activity of rHCG in human compared to that of uHCG (Penarrubia et al., 1999). Furthermore, clinical pregnancy rates were apparently higher in those patients who had received rHCG (33 versus 25%), but this difference was not statistically significant. The risk of OHSS did not appear to differ between the two products, with a similar, low incidence in both treatment groups. Most patients reported good tolerance to the two HCG preparations and any side-effects were generally mild to moderate in severity. Nevertheless, the incidence of side-effects was statistically higher in the uHCG group (45 versus 23%, P = 0.0004). Many of these adverse effects were injection-site-related, occurring far more extensively in the uHCG patients; 38% of injections led to a local reaction in uHCG patients, compared with only 13% in the rHCG group (P = 0.0001). Although urinary-derived gonadotrophins are therapeutically effective, the non-hormonal proteins contained in these preparations are known to cause severe local and systemic immunogenic reactions. In women who have suffered such reactions, following injection of urinary-derived gonadotrophins—human menopausal gonadotrophin, for example—the administration of rFSH has been associated with good tolerance at the site of injection and reduced immunogenicity (Albano et al., 1996; Whitman-Elia et al., 1998), although relative costs of rHCG versus uHCG were not specifically addressed in this study. The improved tolerance of recombinant products, including HCG, is likely to lead to higher patient acceptability, which is a clear, clinical advantage. In conclusion, therefore, this study indicates that rHCG is effective in inducing follicular maturation and early luteinization. Recombinant HCG is associated with more mature oocytes, higher progesterone concentration on days 1 and 6–7 and improved tolerance and is thus likely to have higher patient acceptability. Table I. Mean number of oocytes retrieved per patient (primary efficacy variable) for the `evaluable patients' (n = 172) and `all patients' (n = 190) populations after a single s.c. injection of 250 μg rHCG or 5000 IU uHCG   rHCG    uHCG  Evaluable patients population (n = 172)        Number of patients  88    84  Mean number of oocytes/patient (SD)  11.6 (6.5)    10.6 (5.9)  90% confidence interval    –0.8417, +1.515    All patients population (n = 190)        Number of patients  97    93  Mean number of oocytes/patient (SD)  11.4 (6.5)    10.7 (6.1)  90% confidence interval    –1.206, +1.183      rHCG    uHCG  Evaluable patients population (n = 172)        Number of patients  88    84  Mean number of oocytes/patient (SD)  11.6 (6.5)    10.6 (5.9)  90% confidence interval    –0.8417, +1.515    All patients population (n = 190)        Number of patients  97    93  Mean number of oocytes/patient (SD)  11.4 (6.5)    10.7 (6.1)  90% confidence interval    –1.206, +1.183    View Large Table II. Number of pregnancies (percentage of patients) and outcomes during the study for the all patients population. There were no statistical differences between groups, therefore, P values are not shown   rHCG (n = 97)  uHCG (n = 93)  Total (n = 190)  Values in parentheses are percentages.  Number of pregnancies        All  36 (37.1)  30 (32.2)  66 (34.7)  Biochemical  4 (4.1)  7 (7.5)  11 (5.8)  Clinical  32 (33.0)  23 (24.7)  55 (28.9)  (multiple)  9 (9.3)  9 (9.7)  18 (9.5)  Aborted pregnancies        Miscarriage  3 (3.1)  0  3 (1.6)  Terminated  1 (1.0)  0  1 (0.5)  Extra-uterine  1 (1.0)  1 (1.1)  2 (1.1)  Late miscarriage  1 (1.0)  0  1 (0.5)  Lost to follow-up  0  1 (1.1)  1 (0.5)  Deliveries        Total  26 (26.8)  21 (22.6)  47 (24.7)  Singleton  18 (18.6)  13 (14.0)  31 (16.3)  Twin  8 (8.2)  8 (8.6)  16 (8.4)    rHCG (n = 97)  uHCG (n = 93)  Total (n = 190)  Values in parentheses are percentages.  Number of pregnancies        All  36 (37.1)  30 (32.2)  66 (34.7)  Biochemical  4 (4.1)  7 (7.5)  11 (5.8)  Clinical  32 (33.0)  23 (24.7)  55 (28.9)  (multiple)  9 (9.3)  9 (9.7)  18 (9.5)  Aborted pregnancies        Miscarriage  3 (3.1)  0  3 (1.6)  Terminated  1 (1.0)  0  1 (0.5)  Extra-uterine  1 (1.0)  1 (1.1)  2 (1.1)  Late miscarriage  1 (1.0)  0  1 (0.5)  Lost to follow-up  0  1 (1.1)  1 (0.5)  Deliveries        Total  26 (26.8)  21 (22.6)  47 (24.7)  Singleton  18 (18.6)  13 (14.0)  31 (16.3)  Twin  8 (8.2)  8 (8.6)  16 (8.4)  View Large Figure 1. View largeDownload slide (a) Mean serum progesterone concentrations, (b) mean serum HCG concentrations on day 1 post-HCG, the day of oocyte retrieval, the day of embryo transfer and days 6–7 post-HCG, for the rHCG (n = 88) or uHCG (n = 84) evaluable patients population. Figure 1. View largeDownload slide (a) Mean serum progesterone concentrations, (b) mean serum HCG concentrations on day 1 post-HCG, the day of oocyte retrieval, the day of embryo transfer and days 6–7 post-HCG, for the rHCG (n = 88) or uHCG (n = 84) evaluable patients population. The following staff from Ares-Serono Reproductive Health Clinical Development Unit contributed to the conception, conduct and analysis of the study: L.Maislisch, D.Warne, S.Bologna, E.Loumaye. The following clinical investigators participated in the conception and conduct of the study: J.Bellaisch-Allart, Service de Gynécologie et Obstétrique, Hôpital Jean Rostand, Sèvres, France; P.Dellenbach, Service de Gynécologie et Obstétrique, 19, rue Louis Pasteur, Schiltigheim, France; F.A.Leidenberger, Gemeinschaftspraxis, Hamburg, Germany; M.Scholtes, Gemeinschaftspraxis, Dusseldorf, Germany; R.Fischer, Fertility Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany; B.Fisch, IVF Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beilison Medical Center, Petah-Tikva, Israel; G.B.Melis, Instituto di Ginecologia, Ostetricia & Fisiopatologia della Umana, Università di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy; J.L.H.Evers, Academisch Ziekenhuis Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands; M.Wikland, Fertilitetcentrum AB, Gothenburg, Sweden; J.Mills, Assisted Conception Unit, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, UK The authors are grateful to P.Engrand, S.Ince, A.Piazzi, J.Illingworth, A.Kok, S.Roten, M.Sauvage, G.Ursicino, A.Zrener and B.Forslund for their help in the conception, conduct, and analysis of this study. This work was supported by Ares-Serono International (Geneva, Switzerland). References Albano, C., Smitz, J., Camus, M. et al. ( 1996) Pregnancy and birth in an in-vitro fertilization cycle after controlled ovarian stimulation in a woman with a history of allergic reactions to human menopausal gonadotrophin. Hum. Reprod.  , 11, 1632–1634. Google Scholar Daya, S. and Gunby, J. ( 1999) Recombinant versus urinary follicle stimulating hormone for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction. Hum. Reprod.  , 14, 2200–2206. Google Scholar Hughes, E.G., Fedorkow, D.M., Daya, S. et al. ( 1992) The routine use of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonists prior to in vitro fertilization and gamete intrafallopian transfer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Fertil. Steril.  , 58, 888–896. Google Scholar Loumaye, E. ( 1990) The control of endogenous secretion of LH by gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonists during ovarian hyperstimulation for in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Hum. Reprod.  , 5, 357–376. Google Scholar Loumaye, E., Martineau, I., Piazzi, A. et al. ( 1996) Clinical assessment of human gonadotrophins produced by recombinant DNA technology. Hum. Reprod.  , 11, 95–107. Google Scholar Out, H.J., Mannaerts, B.M.J.L., Driessen, S.G.A.J. and Coelingh-Bennink, H.J.T. ( 1996) Recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH; Puregon) in assisted reproduction: more oocytes, more pregnancies. Results from five comparative studies. Hum. Reprod.  , 2, 162–171. Google Scholar Penarrubia, J., Balasch, J., Fabregues, F. et al. ( 1999) Recurrent empty follicle syndrome successfully treated with recombinant human chorionic gonadotrophin. Hum. Reprod.  , 14, 1703–1706. Google Scholar Pierce, J.G. and Parsons, T.F. ( 1981) Glycoprotein hormones: structure and function. Annu. Rev. Biochem.  , 50, 465–495. Google Scholar Polson, D.W., Mason, H.D., Saldahna, M.B.Y. and Franks, S. ( 1987) Ovulation of a single dominant follicle during treatment with low-dose pulsatile FSH in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Clin. Endocrinol.  , 26, 205–212. Google Scholar Recombinant Human FSH Product Development Group ( 1998) Recombinant follicle stimulating hormone: Development of the first biotechnology product for the treatment of infertility. Hum. Reprod. Update  , 4, 862–881 Google Scholar Smitz, J., Devroey, P., Braeckmans, P. et al. ( 1987) Management of failed cycles in an IVF-GIFT programme with the combination of a GnRH analogue and hMG. Hum. Reprod.  , 2, 309–314. Google Scholar Wehmann R.E. and Nisula B.C. ( 1980) Characterization of a discrete degradation product of the human chorionic gonadotropin β-subunit in humans. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.  , 51, 101–105. Google Scholar Whitman-Elia, G.F., Banks, K. and O'Dea, L.S. ( 1998) Recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone in a patient hypersensitive to urinary-derived gonadotrophins. Gynecol. Endocrinol.  , 12, 209–212. Google Scholar World Health Organization (1996) Adverse Reaction Terminology, version 2. Who Collaborating Center for International Drug Monitoring, Uppsala, Sweden. Google Scholar © European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology

Journal

Human ReproductionOxford University Press

Published: Jul 1, 2000

There are no references for this article.