Peptides DB
Research-centric peptide and protocol reference hub
Study 1 of 26HMG (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
1
Preclinical
19
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

Rationale 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. Objectives 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. Search methods 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. Eligibility criteria 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. Outcomes We implemented the core outcome set for infertility. Our main outcomes were live birth, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (both critical outcomes) and clinical pregnancy. Risk of bias We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 1) to assess the risk of bias. Synthesis methods 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. Included studies We included 59 studies (25 new studies) with a total of 18,119 women undergoing fertility treatment. Synthesis of results 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. Authors' conclusions 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. Funding This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. Registration 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

Csox17 Mutagenesis Reveals Compounding Effects ofMaternal and Zygotic Contribution on Microglia Abundance.Glia · 2026 · Not reported in abstract.AnimalBReal-world utilization of gonadotropins and the associated cumulative live birth rates in the United States: a retrospective claims database analysis.Journal of medical economics · 2026 · n=14174 · Adjusted odds of live birth were 1.31 (95% CI: 1.20-1.45) for mixed protocol compared to follitropin alfa.reviewCMetabolomics-based screening identifies Aspergillus strains that accumulate bioactive leucine catabolites and fatty acid ethyl esters in koji mold-ripened cheese.Food research international (Ottawa, Ont.) · 2026 · R > 0.975 correlation between production quantity of HMB, HMG, α-ketoisocaproic acid, and isovaleric acid with initial concentration of l-leucine.In vitroBIs there a difference in ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome rates in freeze-all treatment cycles in high-risk patients treated with different GnRH agonist triggers?Human fertility (Cambridge, England) · 2026 · n=333 · 12-fold increased risk of severe OHSS with Triptorelin-MR compared to other preparations.HumanCA gut microbial odd-chain fatty acid alleviates atherosclerosis in mice.Nature · 2026AnimalBDelayed 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=0.039Human