Fertility and Sterility
Volume 94, Issue 4 , Pages 1287-1291 , September 2010

Factors affecting success rates in two concurrent clinical IVF trials: an examination of potential explanations for the difference in pregnancy rates between the United States and Europe

  • Valerie L. Baker, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Valerie L. Baker, M.D., Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Stanford University Medical Center, 300 Pasteur Drive, Room HH333, Stanford, CA 94305 (FAX: 650-498-4320).
    • ,
  • Clarence E. Jones, Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Institut Biochimique SA (IBSA), Lugano, Switzerland
    • ,
  • Barbara Cometti, Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Institut Biochimique SA (IBSA), Lugano, Switzerland
    • ,
  • Fred Hoehler, Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Biostatistician Consultant, Orange, California
    • ,
  • Bruno Salle, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc.

      Affiliations

    • Medecine de la Reproduction, Hôpital Femme Mère Enfants, Bron, France, Université Claude Bernard, Lyon, France
    • ,
  • János Urbancsek, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Semmelweis University, first Department of OB/GYN, Division of Assisted Reproduction, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Budapest, Hungary
    • ,
  • Michael R. Soules, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Seattle Reproductive Medicine, Seattle, Washington

Received 23 April 2009 ,Revised 14 June 2009 ,Accepted 21 July 2009.

References 

  1. Gleicher N, Weghofer A, Barad D. Update on the comparison of assisted reproduction outcomes between Europe and the USA: the 2002 data. Fertil Steril. 2007;87:1301–1305
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2006 Assisted reproductive technology success rates: national summary and fertility clinic reports. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2008. [For the most direct comparison to the most recent European data, the reader should consult the 2004 report, published in 2008.]
  3. Andersen AN, Goossens V, Ferraretti AP, Bhattacharya S, Felderbaum R, de Mouzon J, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2004: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:756–771
  4. Baker VL, Fujimoto VY, Kettel LM, Adamson GD, Hoehler F, Jones CE, et al. Clinical efficacy of highly purified urinary FSH versus recombinant FSH in volunteers undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a randomized, multicenter, investigator-blind trial. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:1005–1011
  5. Mohamed MA, Sbracia M, Pacchiarotti A, Micara G, Linari A, Tranquilli D, et al. Urinary follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) is more effective than recombinant FSH in older women in a controlled randomized study. Fertil Steril. 2006;85:1398–1403
  6. Selman HA, De Santo M, Sterzik K, Coccia E, El-Danasouri I. Effect of highly purified urinary follicle stimulating hormone on oocyte and embryo quality. Fertil Steril. 2002;78:1061–1067
  7. Pacchiatrotti A, Aragona C, Gaglione R, Selman H. Efficacy of a combined protocol of urinary and recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone used for ovarian stimulation of patients undergoing ICSI cycle. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2007;24:400–405
  8. Anserini P, Costa M, Remorgida V, Venturini PL. A prospective, randomized, controlled clinical study of a new subcutaneous, purified, urinary FSH preparation for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in in vitro fertilization. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2000;14:75–80
  9. Gerli S, Perino M, Abate A, Costabile L, Gholami H, Vitiello L. Ovarian stimulation using a new highly purified urinary FSH: a prospective radnomized clinical study. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 1999;26:93–94
  10. Pal L, Jindal S, Witt BR, Santoro N. Less is more: increased gonadotropin use for ovarian stimulation adversely influences clinical pregnancy and live birth after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2008;89:1694–1701
  11. Jun SH, Choi B, Shahine L, Westphal LM, Behr B, Reijo-Pera RA, et al. Defining human embryo phenotypes by cohort-specific prognostic factors. PLoS ONE. 2008;3:1–7
  12. Gleicher N, Weghofer A, Barad D. A formal comparison of the practice of assisted reproductive technologies between Europe and the USA. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:1945–1950
  13. The Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine in collaboration with the Society for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility. Progesterone supplementation during the luteal phase and in early pregnancy in the treatment of infertility: an education bulletin. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:S150-3
  14. Malizia BA, Hacker MR, Penzias AS. Cumulative live-birth rates after in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:236–243
  15. Zegers-Hochschild F, Nygren KG, Adamson GD, de Mouzon J, Lancaster P, Mansour R, et al. The International Committee Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ICMART) glossary on ART terminology. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:16–19

 V.L.B. has received IBSA research support. C.E.J. is an employee of IBSA. B.C. is an employee of IBSA. F.H. is a consultant for IBSA, Pioneer Surgical, and Vital Therapies. B.S. has nothing to disclose. J.U. has nothing to disclose. M.R.S. has nothing to disclose.

 The clinical trials used in this analysis were sponsored by Institut Biochimique SA (IBSA).

PII: S0015-0282(09)03466-9

doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.07.1673

Fertility and Sterility
Volume 94, Issue 4 , Pages 1287-1291 , September 2010

Article Tools