Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Use of various gonadotropin and biosimilar formulations for in vitro fertilization cycles: results of a worldwide Web-based survey.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify trends in gonadotropin therapy in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment worldwide.

METHODS: Retrospective evaluation utilizing the results of a Web-based survey, IVF-Worldwide ( www.IVF-worldwide.com ) was performed.

RESULTS: Three hundred fourteen centers performing a total of 218,300 annual IVF cycles were evaluated. Respondents representing 62.2% of cycles (n = 135,800) did not believe there was a difference between urinary and recombinant gonadotropins in terms of efficacy and live birth rate. Of the respondents, 67.3% (n = 146,800) reported no difference between recombinant and urinary formulations in terms of short-term safety and risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. In terms of long-term safety using human urinary gonadotropins, 50.6% (n = 110,400) of respondents believe there are potential long-term risks including prion disease. For 95.3% of units (n = 208,000), the clinician was the decision maker determining which specific gonadotropins are used for IVF. Of the units, 62.6% (n = 136,700) identified efficacy as the most important factor in deciding which gonadotropin to prescribe. While most (67.3%, n = 146,800) were aware of new biosimilar recombinant FSH products entering the market, 92% (n = 201,000) reported they would like more information. A fraction of respondents (25.6%, n = 55,900) reported having experience with these new products, and of these, 80.3% (n = 46,200) reported that they were similar in efficacy as previously used gonadotropins in a similar patient group.

CONCLUSIONS: Respondents representing the majority of centers do not believe a difference exists between urinary and recombinant gonadotropins with respect to efficacy and live birth rates. While many are aware of new biosimilar recombinant FSH products entering the market, over 90% desire more information on these products.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app