Peptides DB
Research-centric peptide and protocol reference hub
Study 1 of 21HMG (Human Menopausal Gonadotropin) literatureeuropepmc · RCT2026

Recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) versus other recombinant or urinary gonadotropins for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology cycles.

Live birth and clinical pregnancy rates are probably lower with rFSH compared to HMG/HP-HMG, while the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome is probably higher with rFSH.

Read at europepmcAdd to compare

Where it sits

this study against the rest of the hmg (human menopausal gonadotropin) corpus
0
Preclinical
15
Observational
0
Open-label
3
Randomised · this one
3
Reviews

Summary and findings

This review compares the effectiveness and safety of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) with various gonadotropins in women undergoing IVF or ICSI. The analysis included 59 studies with a total of 18,119 participants. Key findings suggest that live birth rates may be lower with rFSH compared to HMG/HP-HMG, while the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) may be higher.

How much of this paper we could read: full text read (0.90). We had a clear abstract, so the summary below closely tracks the paper. What this means →
Live birth is probably lower with rFSH compared to HMG/HP-HMG (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.95; 15 studies, 4793 participants, moderate-certainty evidence).2026

Abstract

The authors’ words, as europepmc supplied them

<h4>Rationale</h4>Ovarian stimulation is an essential step during in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), needed to produce multiple follicles for follicle aspiration. The strategy of stimulating the ovaries with gonadotropins is well established and can be performed using different types of gonadotropins. This review update brings together all randomised studies that compare recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH) with urinary gonadotropins and other recombinant rFSH (including rFSH from a human cell line) and biosimilars.<h4>Objectives</h4>To compare the effectiveness and safety of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) with the three main types of urinary gonadotropins, rFSH derived from a human cell line (follitropin delta) and rFSH biosimilars for ovarian stimulation in women undergoing IVF or ICSI treatment cycles.<h4>Search methods</h4>We carried out an extensive search on 31 March 2025, according to Cochrane guidelines. The databases searched included: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register of controlled trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase. We also searched trials registries, reference lists and contacted experts in the field for additional studies.<h4>Eligibility criteria</h4>We included all randomised controlled trials reporting data comparing clinical outcomes of women undergoing IVF/ICSI cycles and using rFSH in comparison with human menopausal gonadotropin (HMG) or highly purified HMG (HP-HMG), purified urinary follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH-P), highly purified urinary FSH (FSH-HP), follitropin delta, and rFSH biosimilars for ovarian hyperstimulation. We used the Trustworthiness in RAndomised Controlled Trials (TRACT) checklist to assess trustworthiness and excluded potentially problematic studies from the analyses.<h4>Outcomes</h4>We implemented the core outcome set for infertility. Our main outcomes were live birth, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (both critical outcomes) and clinical pregnancy.<h4>Risk of bias</h4>We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 1) to assess the risk of bias.<h4>Synthesis methods</h4>We combined data using a fixed-effect model to calculate an odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD). We summarised the overall certainty of evidence for the main outcomes using GRADE criteria.<h4>Included studies</h4>We included 59 studies (25 new studies) with a total of 18,119 women undergoing fertility treatment.<h4>Synthesis of results</h4>rFSH versus HMG/HP-HMG Live birth is probably lower with rFSH compared to HMG/HP-HMG (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.95; 15 studies, 4793 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). OHSS is probably higher with rFSH compared to HMG/HP-HMG (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.80; 37 studies, 9813 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Clinical pregnancy is probably lower with rFSH compared to HMG/HP-HMG (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.98; 15 studies, 4839 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). rFSH versus FSH-HP Live birth: there is probably little or no difference in live birth between rFSH and FSH-HP (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.21; 15 studies, 2956 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) OHSS: there is probably little or no difference in OHSS between rFSH and FSH-HP (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.53; 18 studies, 3640 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Clinical pregnancy: there is probably little or no difference in clinical pregnancy between rFSH and FSH-HP (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.14; 22 studies, 4535 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). rFSH versus follitropin delta Live birth: there is probably little or no difference in live birth between rFSH and follitropin delta (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.04; 3 studies, 2688 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). OHSS is probably higher with rFSH compared to follitropin delta (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.23; 4 studies, 2988 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Clinical pregnancy: there is no difference in clinical pregnancy between rFSH and follitropin delta (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.11; 3 studies, 2688 participants, high-certainty evidence). rFSH versus biosimilars Live birth is probably higher with rFSH compared to biosimilars (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.54; 8 studies, 2883 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). OHSS: there may be little or no difference in OHSS between rFSH and biosimilars (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.06; 8 studies, 2883 participants, low-certainty evidence). Clinical pregnancy was probably higher with rFSH compared to biosimilars (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.60; 7 studies, 2783 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence ranged from low to moderate for live birth and OHSS, and from moderate to high for clinical pregnancy. The main limitations were risk of bias in the included studies - unclear selection bias and selective reporting, as well as high risk of other bias. Many studies were sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry.<h4>Authors' conclusions</h4>Live birth and clinical pregnancies are probably lower with rFSH compared to HMG/HP-HMG, while OHSS is probably higher with rFSH when compared to HMG/HP-HMG. There is probably little to no difference in live birth, clinical pregnancy, or OHSS between rFSH and FSH-HP. When compared with follitropin delta, there is probably little or no difference in live birth or clinical pregnancy, while OHSS is probably higher with rFSH. When compared with biosimilars, live birth and clinical pregnancies are probably higher with rFSH, while there may be little or no difference in OHSS.<h4>Funding</h4>This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding.<h4>Registration</h4>Protocol (2005) https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005354 Review (2011) https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005354.pub2.

Background

The paper addresses the effectiveness of different gonadotropins in ovarian stimulation, a critical component of assisted reproductive technology (ART). Prior studies have shown varying outcomes with different types of gonadotropins, but a comprehensive comparison is necessary to guide clinical practice. This study aims to clarify the relative efficacy of rFSH compared to other gonadotropins.

Methods

The study design is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving women undergoing ovarian stimulation in ART cycles. The population includes women of reproductive age, with the specific number of participants (n) not reported in the abstract. The doses and duration of treatment are also not specified.

Results

Not reported in abstract.

Interpretation

Without specific numeric findings reported, it is difficult to compare the results of this study to prior literature or assess the clinical significance of the findings. The lack of reported effect sizes and confidence intervals limits the ability to draw meaningful conclusions about the efficacy of rFSH versus other gonadotropins. Potential confounding factors include the absence of detailed methodology and participant demographics.

Key findings

  • Not reported in abstract.

Limitations

  • Not reported in abstract.

Elsewhere in the HMG (Human Menopausal Gonadotropin) corpus

BDelayed Argon Plasma Coagulation After Endoscopic Injection Sclerotherapy for Esophageal Varices Reduces Recurrence Risk.DEN open · 2026 · n=112 · 3-year variceal recurrence: 13.9% outpatient vs 28.0% inpatient, p=0.039HumanDArtificial intelligence models for automated and semiautomated analysis and interpretation of clinical electroencephalography.The Lancet. Digital health · 2026reviewBSomatic Mosaic &lt;i&gt;AXIN2&lt;/i&gt;-associated Colonic Polyposis Predominantly Involving the Proximal Colon: A Case Report.DEN open · 2023 · n=1 · Not reported in abstract.HumanDSex-specific reproductive and hormonal factors in relation to Alzheimer’s disease-related biomarkers: A Systematic Reviewbiorxiv-preprint · 2026 · Not reported in abstract.reviewBComparison between the efficacy of short and long GnRH-a protocols as a clinical outcome for viable pregnancies in women undergoing IVF/ICSI Cycles.biorxiv-preprint · 2021 · Clinical pregnancy rates: LAP 33.12% vs SAP 28.23%, p=0.001.HumanBRecombinant Follicular Stimulating Hormone Plus Recombinant Luteinizing Hormone Versus Human Menopausal Gonadotropins- Does the Source of LH Bioactivity Affect Ovarian Stimulation Outcome?biorxiv-preprint · 2021 · Mean number of mature oocytes retrieved: 10 ± 5.8 in rFSH+rLH vs 8.3 ± 4.6 in HP-hMG, p=0.01.Human