Effectiveness, safety and cost of urinary follicle stimulating hormone in controlled ovarian stimulation in China: multi-center retrospective cohort study of 102 061 in vitro fertilization cycles / 中华妇产科杂志

ABSTRACT

Objective:To explore the effectiveness, safety and cost between urinary follicle stimulating hormone (uFSH) and recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH) in controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) in China.Methods:Data were collected from 16 reproductive centers in China covering oocytes collection time from May 1, 2015 to June 30, 2018. Eligible patients were over 18 years old, adopting COS with uFSH (uFSH group) or rFSH (rFSH group) as start gonadotropins (Gn), and using in vitro fertilization (IVF) and (or) intracytoplasmic sperm injection for fertilisation, excluding frozen embryo recovery cycle. Generalised estimating equation was used to address the violation of independency assumption between cycles due to multiple IVF cycles for one person and clustering nature of cycles carried out within one center. Controlling variables included age, body mass index, anti-Müllerian hormone level, cause of infertility, ovulation protocol, type of fertilisation, number of embryos transferred, number of days of Gn use.Results:Totally 102 061 cycles met eligibility criteria and were included in the analyses. In terms of effectiveness, after controlling relevant unbalanced baseline characteristics, compared with rFSH group, the high oocyte retrieval (>15 oocytes was considered high retrieval) rate of uFSH group significantly decreased in gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist protocol ( OR=0.642, P<0.01) and in gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol ( OR=0.556, P=0.001), but the clinical pregnancy rate per transfer cycle and the live birth rate per transfer cycle significantly increased ( OR=1.179, OR=1.169, both P<0.01) in both agonist and antagonist protocols. For safety, multiple analysis result demonstrated that in the agonist protocol, compared with rFSH group, the incidence of moderate to severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome of uFSH group significantly decreased ( OR=0.644, P=0.002). The differences in ectopic pregnancy rate and multiple pregnancy rate between the uFSH and rFSH groups were not significant ( P=0.890, P=0.470) in all patients. In terms of cost, compared with rFSH group, the uFSH group had lower total Gn costs for each patient ( P<0.01). Conclusion:For patients who underwent COS, uFSH has better safety, and economic profiles over rFSH in China.