Urinary-derived Gonadotrophins Research Articles

Gonadotrophins for ovulation induction in women with polycystic ovary syndrome.

Gonadotrophins for ovulation induction in women with polycystic ovary syndrome.

Gonadotrophins for ovulation induction in women with polycystic ovarian syndrome.

Ovulation induction with follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) is the second-line treatment in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) who do not ovulate or conceive on clomiphene citrate (CC). To compare the effectiveness and safety of gonadotrophins as a second-line treatment for ovulation induction in women with CC-resistant PCOS. We searched the Menstrual Disorders & Subfertility Group's Specialist Register of controlled trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (1966 to October 2014), EMBASE (1980 to October 2014), CINAHL (1982 to October 2014), National Research Register and web-based trials databases such as Current Controlled Trials. There was no language restriction. All randomised controlled trials reporting data on comparing clinical outcomes in women with PCOS who did not ovulate or conceive on CC, and undergoing ovulation induction with urinary FSH (uFSH: FSH-P or FSH-HP), HMG/HP-HMG or recombinant FSH. We included trials reporting on ovulation induction followed by intercourse or intrauterine insemination. We excluded studies that used co-treatment with CC, metformin, LH or letrozole. Three review authors (NW, MN and MvW) independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed study quality and extracted study data. Primary outcomes were live birth rate per woman (effectiveness outcome) and incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) per woman (safety outcome). Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, multiple pregnancy, total gonadotrophin dose and total duration of stimulation per woman. We combined data using a fixed-effect model to calculate the odds ratio (OR). We summarised the overall quality of evidence for the main outcomes using GRADE criteria. The review includes 14 trials with 1726 women. Ten trials compared rFSH versus urinary-derived gonadotrophins (three rFSH versus HMG and seven rFSH versus FSH-HP), four trials compared FSH-P with HMG. We found no trials that compared FSH-HP with FSH-P.We found no evidence of a difference in live birth for rFSH versus urinary-derived gonadotrophins (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.99, 5 trials, 505 women, I² = 0%, low-quality evidence) or clinical pregnancy rate (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.39, 8 trials, 1330 women, I² = 0, low-quality evidence). This suggests that for the observed average live birth per woman with urinary-derived FSH of 16%, the chance of live birth following rFSH is between 13% and 26%.For the comparison HMG or HP-HMG versus FSH-P there was also no difference in the evidence on live birth rate (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.58 to 3.18, 3 trials, 138 women, I² = 0%, low-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a live birth rate of 18% with HMG or HP-HMG, the chance of live birth following uFSH is between 9% and 37%.Trial authors used various definitions for OHSS. Pooling the data, we found no evidence of a difference for rFSH versus urinary-derived gonadotrophins (OR 1.52, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.84, 10 trials, 1565 women, I(2) = 0%, very low-quality evidence) and for HMG or HP-HMG versus FSH-P (OR 9.95, 95% CI 0.47 to 210.19, 2 trials, 53 women, I² = 0%, very low-quality evidence). In women with PCOS and CC resistance or CC failure, we found no evidence of a difference in live birth and OHSS rates between urinary-derived gonadotrophins and rFSH or HMG/HP-HMG. Evidence for all outcomes was of low or very low quality. We suggest weighing costs and convenience in the decision to use one or the other.

WITHDRAWN: Gonadotrophin therapy for ovulation induction in subfertility associated with polycystic ovary syndrome.

Background Approximately 15% of women with PCOS remain anovulatory despite treatment with oral anti-oestrogen medications such as citrate. In addition, about half of women with PCOS ovulating on anti-oestrogen treatment fail to conceive. Gonadotrophin stimulation is the next step in treatment for women who are clomiphene resistant, however, results of gonadotrophin stimulation in women with PCOS are less successful. In PCOS associated with hypersecretion of LH, purified urinary follicle-stimulating hormone (u-FSH) preparations have theoretical advantages over the use of human menopausal gonadotrophin (hMG) preparations (containing both FSH and LH) , but whether this claimed advantage extends into clinical practice remains uncertain. In addition, the use of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRH-a) to produce pituitary desensitisation prior to ovulation induction in PCOS has been claimed to increase the success rates of treatment as well as reduce complications such as OHSS and multiple pregnancy. Gonadotrophin preparations have also been administered via different routes (intramuscular or subcutaneous), or using different stimulation regimens and protocols (step-up or standard) in an attempt to improve efficacy. Objectives To determine the effectiveness of urinary-derived gonadotrophins as ovulation induction agents in patients with PCOS trying to conceive. In particular, to assess the effectiveness of (1) different gonadotrophin preparations, (2) the addition of a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) to gonadotrophin stimulation and (3) different modalities of gonadotrophin administration. Search methods The search strategy to identify RCTs consisted of (1) the Group's Specialised Register of Controlled Trials using the search strategy developed for the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group as a whole (see the Review Group details for more information), (2) additional specific electronic MEDLINE searches and (3) bibliographies of identified studies and narrative reviews. Selection criteria RCTs in which urinary-derived gonadotrophins were used for ovulation induction in patients with primary or secondary subfertility attributable to PCOS. Data collection and analysis Twenty three RCTs were identified, nine of which were excluded from analysis. The data were extracted independently by two authors. The following criteria were assessed: (1) the methodological characteristics of the trials (2) the baseline characteristics of the studied groups and (3) the outcomes of interest: pregnancy rate (per cycle), ovulation rate (per cycle), miscarriage rate (per pregnancy), multiple pregnancy rate (per pregnancy), overstimulation rate (per cycle) and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) rate (per cycle). Where suitable, meta-analysis was performed using Peto's OR with 95% CI with the fixed effect Mantel-Haentszel equation. Main results (1) A reduction in the incidence of OHSS with FSH compared to hMG in stimulation cycles without the concomitant use of a GnRH-a (OR 0.20; 95% CI 0.08-0.46) and (2) a higher overstimulation rate when a GnRH-a is added to gonadotrophins (OR 3.15; 95% CI 1.48-6.70). Authors' conclusions Although 14 RCTs were included in this review, few dealt with the same comparisons, all were small to moderate size and their methodological quality was generally poor. Any conclusions, therefore, remain tentative as they are based on a limited amount of data and will require further RCTs to substantiate them. In none of the comparisons was there a significant improvement in pregnancy rate but this may be due to the lack of power (i.e. insufficient patients randomised to demonstrate a significant difference between treatments). There was a trend towards better pregnancy rates with the addition of a GnRH-a to gonadotrophin stimulation and these interventions warrant further study. Despite theoretical advantages, urinary-derived FSH preparations did not improve pregnancy rates when compared to traditional and cheaper hMG preparations; their only demonstrable benefit was a reduced risk of OHSS in cycles when administered without the concomitant use of a GnRH-a. No conclusions can be drawn on miscarriage and multiple pregnancy rates due to insufficient reporting of these outcomes in the trials.

Analytical identification of additional impurities in urinary-derived gonadotrophins

Advances in proteomic technology have enabled contaminant proteins to be identified from complex protein mixtures. The purity of two purified urinary gonadotrophin products, human menopausal gonadotrophin (u-HMG) and human FSH (u-hFSH), was compared with a preparation of recombinant human FSH (r-hFSH). After separation by sodium dodecyl sulphate–polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS–PAGE), western blot analysis showed that the recombinant preparation contained only FSH, whereas the urine-derived preparations exhibited several non-FSH or LH-related bands. These urinary components were further investigated by a proteomic approach using two-dimensional SDS–PAGE followed by mass spectrometric identification. The proteomic approach detected a total of 23 non-gonadotrophin-related proteins, at variable levels in different batches of the urine-derived preparations. Of these, 16 co-purified proteins have not been previously reported to be present in urine-derived gonadotrophins. These results indicate that the process used to purify urinary gonadotrophins may not remove all non-gonadotrophin proteins. By using a comprehensive proteomic approach, it has been shown that the recombinant FSH preparation has greater purity than either of the urine-derived preparations.

Consensus statement on the bio-safety of urinary-derived gonadotrophins with respect to Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease

Human transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) encompass a group of rare neurodegenerative diseases. In April 2004, a group of international experts and regulators met in Buenos Aires, Argentina, to review the safety and to reach consensus on the use of urinary-derived gonadotrophins with respect to TSE. Iatrogenic transmission of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) from pituitary-derived gonadotrophins has been reported, no infectivity in urine has been demonstrated, and no definite cases of transmission via urine have been reported. It is currently not possible to monitor donor urine or finished product for the presence of prions. Therefore the assessment of risk has to be based on the likelihood of infection in urine, the source of the urine, and the capacity of the manufacturing process to remove any adventitious infection. Urine for the production of medicinal products should be obtained from sources that minimize the possible presence of materials derived from subjects suffering from human TSE. As no strong evidence for TSE infectivity in urine exists, it can be concluded that the risk of disease-generating prions and TSE infectivity being present in donor urine is low. Current evidence indicates that, with respect to the risk of TSE infection, urinary-derived gonadotrophins appear to be safe.

Meta-analysis of recombinant FSH and urinary-derived gonadotrophins for IVF or ICSI

Meta-analysis of recombinant FSH and urinary-derived gonadotrophins for IVF or ICSI

Prion transmission in blood and urine: what are the implications for recombinant and urinary-derived gonadotrophins?

Evidence is emerging that suggests that the protease-resistant isoform (PrP(sc)) of the normal cellular prion protein (PrP(c)) can be detected in the blood and urine of animals and humans with transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs). The production of the human menopausal and recombinant gonadotrophin preparations for use in ovarian stimulation protocols in fertility treatment is one area where the pharmaceutical industry needs to be vigilant and take appropriate steps to ensure that the safety of such drugs remains as high as ever. The recombinant preparations utilize fetal calf serum or other animal sera or proteins as part of a culture medium during production. Human urinary-derived menotrophin preparations are exposed to the theoretical risk of infection from menopausal donors of urine. Nevertheless, the failure to demonstrate irrefutably infectivity following intracerebral inoculation with urine from TSE-infected hosts suggests that the risk associated with products derived from urine is merely theoretical. Despite the paucity of evidence to date and its relevance to the infectious spread of TSEs, it is important that robust measures are implemented to either remove or inactivate PrP(sc) in order to minimize contamination. Validation of each production process is required to assess the likelihood of contamination.

Prion transmission in blood and urine: What are the implications for recombinant and urinary-derived gonadotrophins?

Prion transmission in blood and urine: What are the implications for recombinant and urinary-derived gonadotrophins?

Gonadotrophin therapy for ovulation induction in subfertility associated with polycystic ovary syndrome.

Approximately 15% of patients with PCOS remain anovulatory despite treatment with oral anti-oestrogen medications such as clomiphene citrate. In addition, about half of women with PCOS ovulating on anti-oestrogen treatment fail to conceive. Gonadotrophin stimulation is the next step in treatment for women who are "clomiphene resistant", however, results of gonadotrophin stimulation in women with PCOS are less successful. In PCOS associated with hypersecretion of LH, purified urinary follicle-stimulating hormone (u-FSH) preparations have theoretical advantages over the use of human menopausal gonadotrophin (hMG) preparations (containing both FSH and LH), but whether this claimed advantage extends into clinical practice remains uncertain. In addition, the use of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRH-a) to produce pituitary desensitisation prior to ovulation induction in PCOS has been claimed to increase the success rates of treatment as well as reduce complications such as OHSS and multiple pregnancy. Gonadotrophin preparations have also been administered via different routes (intramuscular or subcutaneous), or using different stimulation regimens and protocols (step-up or standard) in an attempt to improve efficacy. To determine the effectiveness of urinary-derived gonadotrophins as ovulation induction agents in patients with PCOS trying to conceive. In particular, to assess the effectiveness of (1) different gonadotrophin preparations, (2) the addition of a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) to gonadotrophin stimulation and (3) different modalities of gonadotrophin administration. The search strategy to identify RCTs consisted of (1) the Group's Specialised Register of Controlled Trials using the search strategy developed for the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group as a whole (see the Review Group details for more information), (2) additional specific electronic Medline searches and (3) bibliographies of identified studies and narrative reviews. RCTs in which urinary-derived gonadotrophins were used for ovulation induction in patients with primary or secondary subfertility attributable to PCOS. Twenty three RCTs were identified, 9 of which were excluded from analysis. The data were extracted independently by 2 authors. The following criteria were assessed: (1) the methodological characteristics of the trials, (2) the baseline characteristics of the studied groups and (3) the outcomes of interest: pregnancy rate (per cycle), ovulation rate (per cycle), miscarriage rate (per pregnancy), multiple pregnancy rate (per pregnancy), overstimulation rate (per cycle) and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) rate (per cycle). Where suitable, meta-analysis was performed using Peto's OR with 95% CI with the fixed effect Mantel-Haentszel equation. (1) A reduction in the incidence of OHSS with FSH compared to hMG in stimulation cycles without the concomitant use of a GnRH-a (OR 0.20; 95% CI 0.08-0.46) and (2) a higher overstimulation rate when a GnRH-a is added to gonadotrophins (OR 3.15; 95% CI 1.48-6.70). Although 14 RCTs were included in this review, few dealt with the same comparisons, all were small to moderate size and their methodological quality was generally poor. Any conclusions, therefore, remain tentative as they are based on a limited amount of data and will require further RCTs to substantiate them. In none of the comparisons was there a significant improvement in pregnancy rate but this may be due to the lack of power (i.e. insufficient patients randomised to demonstrate a significant difference between treatments). There was a trend towards better pregnancy rates with the addition of a GnRH-a to gonadotrophin stimulation and these interventions warrant further study. Despite theoretical advantages, urinary-derived FSH preparations did not improve pregnancy rates when compared to traditional and cheaper hMG preparations; their only demonstrable benefit was a reduced risk of OHSS in cycles when administered without the concomitant use of a GnRH-a. No conclusions can be drawn on miscarriage and multiple pregnancy rates due to insufficient reporting of these outcomes in the trials.

Recombinant gonadotrophins: an introduction.

Gonadotrophin preparations of varying composition and purity have been used to promote fertility for over 40 years. During the past 3-4 decades there have also been major advances in the basic scientific understanding of gonadotrophins and their role in health and disease (see Table I). Significant advances in the scientific area have included the recognition that follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) is the major follicular regulator, the 2-cell two-gonadotrophin theory, the identification of the structure of gonadotrophins, and characterization of glycosylation sites. There have also been major advance­ ments in techniques such as bioassays, immunoassays, immunopurification and, most recently, genetic engineering. These developments have led to the production of increasingly pure and well-characterized gonadotrophins for clinical use. The first use of gonadotrophins to induce ovulation in hypogonadotropic women was accomplished in the 1950s using pituitary extracts. This was followed by the development of urinary human menopausal gonadotrophin (HMG) for clinical use during the 1960s and the availability of luteinizing hormone (LH)­ free urinary extracts of FSH in the 1980s. The introduction of immunopurification techniques using specific monoclonal antibodies resulted in the first introduction in the 1990s of highly purified urinary gonadotrophins. The development of pure gonadotrophin products has lagged somewhat behind scientific advances. Although the structure of gonadotrophins was first identified in the 1960s and genetic engineering became possible in the 1980s, it was not until the 1990s before recombinant products were first synthesized. Scientific knowledge in the field continues to advance with the recent understanding of the three-dimensional structure of gonadotrophins and the localization of the sites involved in receptor recognition, signal transduction, and determination of half-life. Urinary-derived gonadotrophins have, to date, been the mainstay in the management of infertility. However, these products are far from ideal and recombinant gonadotrophins represent the future for the treatment of this condition. For urine-derived products, the availability of raw material has limits and is not a constant source. There are also concerns with these products with respect to the co-administration of unwanted biologica:lly-active urinary proteins in relatively large amounts, and of possible effects of concomitant medication taken by donors.

Adverse local reaction to intramuscular injections of urinary-derived gonadotrophins

Adverse local reaction to intramuscular injections of urinary-derived gonadotrophins