Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 149–153 | Cite as

A prospective, randomized and blinded comparison between 10,000 IU urinary and 250 μg recombinant human chorionic gonadotropin for oocyte maturation in in vitro fertilization cycles

  • Vicente Abdelmassih
  • Flavio G. Oliveira
  • Sergio P. Goncalves
  • Adriana D. Varella
  • Michael P. Diamond
  • Roger Abdelmassih
Assisted Reproduction


Purpose: To compare the efficacy and safety of u-hCG with r-hCG in IVF cycles.

Methods: A prospective, investigator-blind, randomized, comparative study. Patients (n = 100) ≤ 35 years with IVF indication were randomly assigned on the day of hCG administration for oocyte maturation to receive either u-hCG (10,000 IU) or r-hCG (250 μ g).

Results: No statistical differences were found between groups in relation to total number of oocytes retrieved, percentage of mature oocytes, number of injected oocytes, fertilization rates and number of embryos transferred. The data indicate a possible trend toward a higher incidence of pregnancy in the r-hCG group. Adverse events, predominantly injection-site reactions, were significantly more common in the u-hCG group.

Conclusions: r-hCG is at least as effective for inducing final stages of oocyte maturation as 10,000 IU u-hCG and is also associated with significantly better patient tolerance and thus higher patient acceptability.


In vitro fertilization luteinizing hormone oocyte maturation recombinant human chorionic gonadotropin urinary human chorionic gonadotropin 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Pierce JG, Parsons TF: Glycoprotein hormones: Structure and function. Annu Rev Biochem 1981;50:465–495PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smitz J, Cortvrindt R, Hu Y: Epidermal growth factor combined with recombinant human chorionic gonadotrophin improves meiotic progression in mouse follicle-enclosed oocyte culture. Hum Reprod 1998;13:664–669PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Trinchard-Lugan I, Khan A, Porchet HC: Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of recombinant human chorionic gonadotrophin in healthy male and female volunteers. Reprod Biomed Online 2002;4:106–115PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chang P, Kenley S, Burns T, Denton G, Currie K, DeVane G, O’Dea L: Recombinant human chorionic gonadotropin (rhCG) in assisted reproductive technology: Results of a clinical trial comparing two doses of rhCG (Ovidrel) to urinary hCG (Profasi) for induction of final follicular maturation in in vitro fertilization—embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2001;76:67–74PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Driscoll GL, Tyler JP, Hangan JT, Fisher PR, Birdsall MA, Knight DC: A prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind, double-dummy comparison of recombinant and urinary HCG for inducing oocyte maturation and follicular luteinization in ovarian stimulation. Hum Reprod 2000;15:1305–1310PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    The European Recombinant Human Chorionic Gonadotrophin Study Group: Induction of final follicular maturation and early luteinization in women undergoing ovulation induction for assisted reproduction treatment: Recombinant HCG versus urinary HCG. Hum Reprod 2000;15:1446–1451Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    The International Recombinant Human Chorionic Gonadotropin Study Group: Induction of ovulation in World Health Organization group II anovulatory women undergoing follicular stimulation with recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone: A comparison of recombinant human chorionic gonadotropin (rhCG) and urinary hCG. Fertil Steril 2001;75:1111–1118Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Espey LL: Ovarian proteolytic enzymes and ovulation. Biol Reprod 1974;10:216–235PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lawrence TS, Dekel N, Beers WH: Binding of human chorionic gonadotropin by rat cumuli oophori and granulosa cells: A comparative study. Endocrinology 1980;106:1114–1118PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brailly S, Gougeon A, Milgrom E, Bomsel-Helmreich O, Papiernik E: Androgens and progestins in the human ovarian follicle: Differences in the evolution of preovulatory, healthy nonovulatory, and atretic follicles. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1981;53:128–134PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harrison S, Wolf T, Abuzeid MI: Administration of recombinant follicle stimulating hormone in a woman with allergic reaction to menotropin: A case report. Gynecol Endocrinol 2000;14:149–152PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Battaglia C, Salvatori M, Regnani G, Primavera MR, Genazzani AR, Artini PG, Volpe A: Allergic reaction to a highly purified urinary follicle stimulating hormone preparation in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization. Gynecol Endocrinol 2000;14:158–161PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vicente Abdelmassih
    • 1
  • Flavio G. Oliveira
    • 1
  • Sergio P. Goncalves
    • 1
  • Adriana D. Varella
    • 1
  • Michael P. Diamond
    • 2
  • Roger Abdelmassih
    • 1
  1. 1.Clínica e Centro de Pesquisa em Reprodução Humana Roger AbdelmassihSão Paulo, SP
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and InfertilityHutzel Hospital/Wayne State University School of MedicineDetroit

Personalised recommendations