Suppression of LH during ovarian stimulation: effects differ in cycles stimulated with purified urinary FSH and recombinant FSH

• Published in: Human reproduction (Oxford) 2000-07, Vol.15 (7), p.1440-1445
• Main Authors: Fleming, R., Rehka, P., Deshpande, N., Jamieson, M.E., Yates, R.W.S., Lyall, H.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Abortion, Spontaneous - epidemiology; Adult; Biological and medical sciences; Cohort Studies; Female; Fertility Agents, Female - therapeutic use; follicle stimulating hormone; Follicle Stimulating Hormone - therapeutic use; Follicle Stimulating Hormone, Human; follicular growth; Genital system. Reproduction; gonadotrophins; Humans; Incidence; Infertility, Female - drug therapy; luteinising hormone; Luteinizing Hormone - antagonists & inhibitors; Luteinizing Hormone - blood; Medical sciences; Menotropins - therapeutic use; Menstrual Cycle - drug effects; ovarian stimulation; Ovary - drug effects; Ovary - physiopathology; Pharmacology. Drug treatments; Pregnancy; Recombinant Proteins - therapeutic use; Retrospective Studies
• ISSN: 0268-1161; 1460-2350
• DOI: 10.1093/humrep/15.7.1440

There has been much debate about the role of luteinizing hormone (LH) during follicle stimulating hormone (FSH)-treated ovarian stimulation for assisted reproduction, where the endogenous LH is suppressed using a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogue. The requirement for LH in oestradiol biosynthesis is established, but other effects of `insufficiency' are less clear, and little attention has been paid to the specific origin of the FSH used. The aim of this study was to examine the roles of profoundly suppressed circulating LH concentrations in cycles of ovarian stimulation for IVF, which were affected in two large separate cohorts of patients undergoing assisted reproduction. They were stimulated by either purified urinary FSH (MHP) or recombinant human FSH (rFSH). Within each dataset, outcomes were examined with respect to the circulating concentrations of LH in the mid-follicular phase, as plasma samples were stored prospectively, and assayed retrospectively. Patients with profoundly suppressed LH showed much reduced oestradiol concentrations at mid-follicular phase and at human chorionic gonadotrophin administration in cycles treated with either MHP or rFSH. However, gross ovarian response, as became evident by FSH dose demands, duration of stimulation, and also oocyte and embryo yields and embryo cryopreservation were influenced only in cycles treated with MHP. Furthermore, no effect upon pregnancy survival was observed. Thus, it is concluded that there is a demand for additional exogenous LH treatment only in cycles treated with purified urinary FSH where the LH is profoundly suppressed.