title: FSH replaced by low-dose hCG in the late follicular phase versus continued FSH for assisted reproductive techniques.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  During controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) is frequently used for several days to achieve follicular development. FSH is a relatively expensive drug, substantially contributing to the total expenses of assisted reproductive techniques (ART). When follicles achieve a diameter greater than 10 mm they start expressing luteinising hormone (LH) receptors. At this point, FSH might be replaced by low-dose human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), which is less expensive. In addition to cost reduction, replacing FSH by low-dose hCG has a theoretical potential to reduce the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS).
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of using low-dose hCG to replace FSH during the late follicular phase in women undergoing COH for assisted reproduction, compared to the use of a conventional COH protocol.
  
  
  METHODS
  We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCT) in electronic databases (Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS), trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), conference abstracts (ISI Web of knowledge), and grey literature (OpenGrey); additionally we handsearched the reference list of included studies and similar reviews. The last electronic search was performed in February 2013..
  
  
  METHODS
  Only true RCTs comparing the replacement of FSH by low-dose hCG during late follicular phase of COH were considered eligible; quasi or pseudo-randomised trials were not included. Cross-over trials would be included only if data regarding the first treatment of each participant were available; trials that included the same participant more than once would be included only if each participant was always allocated to the same intervention and follow-up periods were the same in both/all arms, or if data regarding the first treatment of each participant were available. We excluded trials that sustained FSH after starting low-dose hCG and those that started FSH and low-dose hCG at the same time.
  
  
  METHODS
  Study eligibility, data extraction, and assessment of the risk of bias were performed independently by two review authors, and disagreements were solved by consulting a third review author. We corresponded with study investigators in order to solve any query, as required. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed in a GRADE summary of findings table.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The search retrieved 1585 records; from those five studies were eligible, including 351 women (intervention = 166; control = 185). All studies were judged to be at high risk of bias. All reported per-woman rather than per-cycle data.When use of low-dose hCG to replace FSH was compared with conventional COH for the outcome of live birth, confidence intervals were very wide and findings were compatible with appreciable benefit, no effect or appreciable harm for the intervention (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.75 to 3.25, 2 studies, 130 women, I² = 0%, very-low-quality evidence). This suggests that for women with a 14% chance of achieving live birth using conventional COH, the chance of achieving live birth using low-dose hCG would be between 10% and 45%.Similarly confidence intervals were very wide for the outcome of OHSS and findings were compatible with benefit, no effect or harm for the intervention (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.59, 5 studies, 351 women, I² = 59%, very-low-quality evidence). This suggests that for women with a 3% risk of OHSS using conventional COH, the risk using low-dose hCG would be between 0% and 4%.The confidence intervals were wide for the outcome of ongoing pregnancy and findings were compatible with benefit or no effect for the intervention (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.60, 3 studies, 252 women, I² = 0%, low-quality evidence). This suggests that for women with a 32% chance of achieving ongoing pregnancy using conventional COH, the chance using low-dose hCG would be between 27% and 53%.The confidence intervals were wide for the outcome of clinical pregnancy and findings were compatible with benefit or no effect for the intervention (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.55, 5 studies, 351 women, I² = 0%, low-quality evidence). This suggests that for women with a 35% chance of achieving clinical pregnancy using conventional COH, the chance using low-dose hCG would be between 32% and 54%.The confidence intervals were very wide for the outcome of miscarriage and findings were compatible with benefit, no effect or harm for the intervention (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.31, 3 studies, 127 pregnant women, I² = 0%, very-low-quality evidence). This suggests that for pregnant women with a 16% risk of miscarriage using conventional COH, the risk using low-dose hCG would be between 8% and 36%.The findings for the outcome of FSH consumption were compatible with benefit for the intervention (MD -639 IU, 95% CI -893 to -385, 5 studies, 333 women, I² = 88%, moderate-quality evidence).The findings for the outcome of number of oocytes retrieved were compatible with no effect for the intervention (MD -0.12 oocytes, 95% CI -1.0 to 0.8 oocytes, 5 studies, 351 women, I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  We are very uncertain of the effect on live birth, OHSS and miscarriage of using low-dose hCG to replace FSH during the late follicular phase of COH in women undergoing ART, compared to the use of conventional COH. The current evidence suggests that this intervention does not reduce the chance of ongoing and clinical pregnancy; and that it is likely to result in an equivalent number of oocytes retrieved expending less FSH. More studies are needed to strengthen the evidence regarding the effect of this intervention on important reproductive outcomes.
authors.affiliation: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical School of Ribeirao Preto, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil.
authors.forename: Wellington P
authors.initials: WP
authors.lastname: Martins
authors.forename: Andrea D D
authors.initials: AD
authors.lastname: Vieira
authors.forename: Jaqueline B P
authors.initials: JB
authors.lastname: Figueiredo
authors.forename: Carolina O
authors.initials: CO
authors.lastname: Nastri
mesh_terms: D000022:Abortion, Spontaneous / Q000453:epidemiology; D006063:Chorionic Gonadotropin / Q000008:administration & dosage* / Q000009:adverse effects; D016001:Confidence Intervals; D057915:Drug Substitution; D005260:Female; D005300:Fertility Agents, Female / Q000008:administration & dosage* / Q000009:adverse effects; D005640:Follicle Stimulating Hormone / Q000008:administration & dosage*; D005498:Follicular Phase / Q000187:drug effects* / Q000502:physiology; D006801:Humans; D050498:Live Birth; D011247:Pregnancy; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D027724:Reproductive Techniques, Assisted
chemical_list: D006063:Chorionic Gonadotropin; D005300:Fertility Agents, Female; D005640:Follicle Stimulating Hormone
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1977 Dec 1;129(7):795-808
references.pmid: 343593
references.citation: J Assist Reprod Genet. 2010 Feb;27(2-3):121-8
references.pmid: 20140640
references.citation: Hum Reprod. 2012 Oct;27(10):3074-84
references.pmid: 22791754
references.citation: Fertil Steril. 2005 Aug;84(2):394-401
references.pmid: 16084880
references.citation: Fertil Steril. 2013 Apr;99(5):1324-1331.e1
references.pmid: 23290741
references.citation: Hum Reprod. 2011 Dec;26(12):3312-8
references.pmid: 21987524
references.citation: Hum Reprod Update. 2002 Nov-Dec;8(6):543-57
references.pmid: 12498424
references.citation: Hum Reprod Update. 2009 Jan-Feb;15(1):13-29
references.pmid: 19091755
references.citation: Mol Hum Reprod. 1997 Jul;3(7):569-78
references.pmid: 9268134
references.citation: Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2009;36(4):217-8
references.pmid: 20101851
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 1987 May;69(5):800-6
references.pmid: 3106871
references.citation: J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2002 Mar;87(3):1156-61
references.pmid: 11889180
references.citation: Fertil Steril. 2007 Sep;88(3):665-9
references.pmid: 17292895
references.citation: J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1999 Aug;84(8):2659-63
references.pmid: 10443656
references.citation: Hum Reprod. 2008 Aug;23(8):1820-9
references.pmid: 18487212
references.citation: Hum Reprod. 2011 Aug;26(8):2239-46
references.pmid: 21659314
references.citation: Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2009 Oct 13;7:110
references.pmid: 19825188
references.citation: Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011 Dec;284(6):1431-8
references.pmid: 21210134
references.citation: Endocr Rev. 2006 Apr;27(2):170-207
references.pmid: 16434510
references.citation: Fertil Steril. 2012 Jun;97(6):1343-50.e1-3
references.pmid: 22464087
references.citation: Fertil Steril. 2007 Oct;88(4):1010-3
references.pmid: 17434503
references.citation: Hum Reprod. 2006 Sep;21(9):2375-83
references.pmid: 16751647
references.citation: Hum Reprod. 2009 Nov;24(11):2683-7
references.pmid: 19801627
references.citation: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2007 Jan;130(1):99-106
references.pmid: 16835006
references.citation: Hum Reprod. 2009 Nov;24(11):2910-6
references.pmid: 19617207
references.citation: Reprod Biomed Online. 2009 Nov;19(5):619-30
references.pmid: 20021711
references.citation: Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012 Sep;286(3):771-5
references.pmid: 22619027
references.citation: Fertil Steril. 2006 Oct;86(4):830-8
references.pmid: 16963040
references.citation: Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2009 Aug 31;7:91
references.pmid: 19719843
references.citation: J Assist Reprod Genet. 2006 May;23(5):223-8
references.pmid: 16786420