Background: Although many studies have been published comparing hMG to rFSH with a GnRH agonist, information is lacking for similar comparisons using a GnRH antagonist.Objective: To test the null hypothesis that IVF/ET cycle performance parameters and success are not significantly different between patients administered a GnRH antagonist and either hMG or rFSH for ovarian stimulation.Materials & Methods: A retrospective cohort study of consecutively treated infertile reproductive aged women presenting to a private fertility practice for IVF/ET. Induction protocols consisted of a single cycle of oral contraceptives followed by a cycle day 3 start of either hMG (Repronex, Ferring) or rFSH (Gonal-F, Serono), each combined with a midfollicular phase start GnRH antagonist. Patient demographics, cycle performance characteristics, numbers of oocytes and embryos and live birth rates were examined.Results: During the 18 months examined, a total of 206 patients were identified to have cycled on either hMG (114) or rFSH (92). Mean patient age, BMI, indications for IVF/ET, cycle day 3 FSH levels and semen parameters did not differ significantly between the two groups (p>0.05). Length of induction, amount of medication administered, and peak estradiol levels were likewise similar (p>0.05). Mean numbers of oocytes retrieved, fertilization rates, and numbers of embryos transferred were the same (p>0.05). Live birth rates did favor hMG over rFSH patients (43% vs. 28%, respectively p<0.05). This advantage was seen across all age groups.Serum LH levels were significantly lower among rFSH patients on the day following antagonist administration compared to hMG recipients (p<0.05). Furthermore, this dramatic drop in LH levels among rFSH patients was strongly associated with IVF failure.Conclusion: IVF patients receiving hMG + GnRH antagonist demonstrate higher live birth rates compared to those receiving rFSH + GnRH antagonist. This difference could not be attributed to patient selection, demographics, cycle response or in vitro gamete performance. The observed difference reflects the efficiency of the GnRH antagonist’s suppression of endogenous LH in combination with the absolute lack of an exogenous LH source by rFSH, causing LH levels to fall below a critical threshold. We therefore reject the null hypothesis and report a superior outcome of hMG over rFSH when utilizing a GnRH antagonist for induction in IVF/ET. Background: Although many studies have been published comparing hMG to rFSH with a GnRH agonist, information is lacking for similar comparisons using a GnRH antagonist. Objective: To test the null hypothesis that IVF/ET cycle performance parameters and success are not significantly different between patients administered a GnRH antagonist and either hMG or rFSH for ovarian stimulation. Materials & Methods: A retrospective cohort study of consecutively treated infertile reproductive aged women presenting to a private fertility practice for IVF/ET. Induction protocols consisted of a single cycle of oral contraceptives followed by a cycle day 3 start of either hMG (Repronex, Ferring) or rFSH (Gonal-F, Serono), each combined with a midfollicular phase start GnRH antagonist. Patient demographics, cycle performance characteristics, numbers of oocytes and embryos and live birth rates were examined. Results: During the 18 months examined, a total of 206 patients were identified to have cycled on either hMG (114) or rFSH (92). Mean patient age, BMI, indications for IVF/ET, cycle day 3 FSH levels and semen parameters did not differ significantly between the two groups (p>0.05). Length of induction, amount of medication administered, and peak estradiol levels were likewise similar (p>0.05). Mean numbers of oocytes retrieved, fertilization rates, and numbers of embryos transferred were the same (p>0.05). Live birth rates did favor hMG over rFSH patients (43% vs. 28%, respectively p<0.05). This advantage was seen across all age groups. Serum LH levels were significantly lower among rFSH patients on the day following antagonist administration compared to hMG recipients (p<0.05). Furthermore, this dramatic drop in LH levels among rFSH patients was strongly associated with IVF failure. Conclusion: IVF patients receiving hMG + GnRH antagonist demonstrate higher live birth rates compared to those receiving rFSH + GnRH antagonist. This difference could not be attributed to patient selection, demographics, cycle response or in vitro gamete performance. The observed difference reflects the efficiency of the GnRH antagonist’s suppression of endogenous LH in combination with the absolute lack of an exogenous LH source by rFSH, causing LH levels to fall below a critical threshold. We therefore reject the null hypothesis and report a superior outcome of hMG over rFSH when utilizing a GnRH antagonist for induction in IVF/ET.