A retrospective comparison of clinical outcomes and satisfaction using reconstituted recombinant gonadotropins (rFSH) or cartridge rFSH with a pen device in donor oocyte cycles^*

References

• Daya S. Follicle-stimulating hormone in clinical practice: an update. Treat Endocrinol 2004;3:161–71
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bassett RM, Driebergen R. Continued improvements in the quality of follitropin alfa, recombinant human FSH. Reprod Biomed Online 2005;10:169–77
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Out HJ, Mannaerts BMJL, Driessen SGAJ, et al. Recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (follitropin beta, Puregon) yields higher pregnancy rates in in-vitro fertilization than urinary gonadotropins. Fertil Steril 1997;68:138–42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergh C, Howles CM, Borg K, et al. Recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone (R-hFSH; Gonal-F) versus highly purified urinary FSH (Metrodin HP): results of a randomized comparative study in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques. Hum Reprod 1997;12:2133–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daya S. Updated meta-analysis of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) versus urinary FSH for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril 2002;77:711–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dickey RP, Thornton M, Nichols J, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of a highly purified human follicle-stimulating hormone (Bravelle) and recombinant follitropin-beta for in vitro fertilization: a prospective, randomized study. Fertil Steril 2002;77:1202–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The North American Follistim Study Group (2003). An aqueous formulation of recombinant human FSH is more efficient than a freeze-dried cake formulation in clomiphene-resistant women with anovulation. Reprod BioMed Online [in press]
   Google Scholar
• Al-Inany H, Aboulghar M, Mansour R, et al. Meta-analysis of recombinant versus urinary-derived FSH: an update. Hum Reprod 2003;18:305–13
   Google Scholar
• Kadiri A, Chraibi A, Marouan F, et al. Comparison of NovoPen 3 and syringes/vials in the acceptance of insulin therapy in NIDDM subjects with secondary failure to oral hypoglycemic agents. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 1998;41:15–23
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bohannon NJ. Insulin delivery using pen devices – simple to use tools may help young and old alike. Postgrad Med 1999;106: 57–68
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pang S, Kaplan B, Karande V, et al.; The Follistim Pen COH Study Group. Administration of recombinant human FSH (solution in cartridge) with a pen device in women undergoing ovarian stimulation. Reprod BioMed Online 2003;7:319–26
   Google Scholar
• Somkuti SG, Schertz JC, Moore M, et al. Patient experience with follitropin alfa prefilled pen versus previously used injectable gonadotropins for ovulation induction in oligoovulatory women. Curr Med Res Opin 2006;22:1981–91
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Platteau P, Laurent E, Albano C, et al. An open, randomized, single-centre study to compare the efficacy and convenience of follitropin beta administered by a pen device with follitropin alfa administered by a conventional syringe in women undergoing ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI. Hum Reprod 2003;102: 978–84
   Google Scholar
• Kettel LM, Scholl G, Bonaventura L, et al. Administration of recombinant human FSH (solution in cartridge) with a pen device in women undergoing ovarian stimulation. Reprod BioMed Online 2004;9:373–80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voortman G, van de Post J, Scoemaker RC, et al. Bioequivalence of subcutaneous injections of recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone (PuregonR) by pen-injector and syringe. Hum Reprod 1999;17;1698–702
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schover LR, Collins RL, Quigley MM, et al. Psychological follow-up of women evaluated as oocyte donors. Hum Reprod 1991;6:1487–91
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soderstrom-Anttila V. Follow-up study of Finnish volunteer oocyte donors concerning their attitudes to oocyte donation. Hum Reprod 1995;10:3073–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenberg H, Epstein Y. Follow-up study of anonymous ovum donors. Hum Reprod 1995;10:2741–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fielding D, Handley S, Duqueno L, et al. Motivation, attitudes, and experience of donation: a follow-up of women donating eggs in assisted conception treatment. J Community Appl Soc Psychol 1998;8;273–87
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalfoglou AL, Gittelsohn J. A qualitative follow-up study of women’s experiences with oocyte donation. Hum Reprod 2000;15:798–805
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patrick M, Smith A, Moyer WR, et al. Anonymous oocyte donation: a follow-up questionnaire. Fertil Steril 2001;75:1034–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klock SC, Stout JE, Davidson M. Psychological characteristics and factors related to willingness to donate again among anonymous oocyte donors. Fertil Steril 2003;79:1312–6
   Google Scholar
• Lindheim S, Frumovitz M, Sauer MV. Recruitment and screening policies and procedures used to establish a paid donor oocyte registry. Hum Reprod 1998;13:2020–4
   Google Scholar
• Sauer MV. Oocyte donation; reviewing a decade of growth and development. Semin Reprod Endocrinol 1995;13:79–84
   Google Scholar
• Fauser B, Devroey P. Why is the clinical acceptance of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist co-treatment during ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization so slow? Fertil Steril 2005;83:1607–11
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borm G, Mannaerts B; The European Orgalutran Study Group. Treatment with the gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist ganirelix in women undergoing ovarian stimulation with recombinant follicle stimulating hormone is effective, safe, and convenient: results of a controlled, randomized, multicentre trial. Hum Reprod 2000;15:1490–8
   Google Scholar
• Fluker M, Grifo J, Leader A, et al.; The North American Ganirelix Study Group. Efficacy and safety of ganirelix acetate versus leuprolide acetate in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Fertil Steril 2001;75:38–45
   Google Scholar
• Lindheim SR, Morales AJ. GnRH antagonists followed by a decline in serum estradiol results in adverse outcomes in donor oocyte cycles. Hum Reprod 2003;18:2048–51
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ricciarelli E, Sanchez M, Martinez M, et al. Impact of the gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist in oocyte donation cycles. Fertil Steril 2003;73:18–22
   Google Scholar
• Al Inany H, Aboulghar M. GnRH antagonist in assisted reproduction: a Cochrane review. Hum Reprod 2002;17: 874–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Acevedo B, Sanchez M, Gomez JL, et al. Luteinizing hormone supplementation increases pregnancy rates in gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist donor cycles. Fertil Steril 2004;82:343–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cedrin-Durnerin I, Grange-Dujardin D, Laffy A, et al. Recombinant human LH supplementation during GnRH antagonist administration in IVF/ICSI cycles: a prospective randomized study. Hum Reprod 2004;19:1979–84
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prapas N, Prapas Y, Panagiotidis Y, et al. GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist I oocyte donation cycles: a prospective randomized study. Hum Reprod 2005;20:1516–20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Propst AM, Bates W, Robinson RD, et al. A randomized controlled trial of increasing recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone after initiating a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist for in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2006;86:58–63
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blake D, Proctor M, Johnson N, et al. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted conception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev; CD002118, 2005
   Google Scholar