Search

Purpose: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the therapeutic effects of rFSH versus uFSH/uHMG on ovarian stimulation in women undergoing assisted reproductive technology. Methods: The databases of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched to retrieve data on eligible trials from inception until July 2022. The relative risks (RRs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were applied to assess categorical and continuous outcomes, and the pooled results were calculated using the random-effects model. Sensitivity, subgroup, and publication bias analyses were also performed. Results: Forty-eight trials that enrolled 10,127 women were included in this quantitative meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between rFSH and uFSH/uHMG in the clinical pregnancy rate (RR: 1.01; 95% CI 0.95–1.07; P = 0.760), live birth rate (RR: 0.98; 95% CI 0.91–1.06; P = 0.665), multiple pregnancy rate (RR: 0.92; 95% CI 0.77–1.09; P = 0.320), miscarriage rate (RR: 1.17; 95% CI 0.94–1.46; P = 0.151), and the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (RR: 1.25; 95% CI 0.91–1.70; P = 0.164). In addition, the administration of rFSH was associated with a higher number of oocyte retrieval compared with that of uFSH/uHMG (WMD: 0.61; 95% CI 0.03–1.20; P = 0.038), while no significant differences were found between rFSH and uFSH/uHMG in the dosage of gonadotrophin (WMD: 14.80; 95% CI − 136.97 to 166.57; P = 0.848) and the duration of ovarian stimulation (WMD: − 0.26; 95% CI − 0.62 to 0.10; P = 0.152). Thus, the exploratory analyses revealed several potential differences in the effects of rFSH versus uFSH/uHMG on ovarian stimulation. Conclusion: The administration of rFSH significantly increased the number of oocytes retrieved, whereas there were no significant differences between the efficacies of rFSH and uFSH/uHMG for pregnancy outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Allylestrenol is an oral progestogen being increasingly used for luteal phase support in assisted reproductive techniques. However, evidence of the clinical efficacy of allylestrenol in luteal phase support is lacking. Dydrogesterone is a representative drug used for luteal phase support, the efficacy of which has been clinically confirmed. As such, we aimed to compare the effects of allylestrenol with the standard dydrogesterone on clinical pregnancy rates and pregnancy outcomes. Methods: This retrospective study included 3375 assisted reproductive technique cycles using either allylestrenol or dydrogesterone between January 2015 and March 2020. Patients using either allylestrenol or dydrogesterone were matched in a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores. The primary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate and pregnancy outcomes. Results: No significant difference was found in the clinical pregnancy rate (53.5% vs. 53.2%, P = 0.928) and pregnancy outcomes (all P > 0.05) between allylestrenol and dydrogesterone. Compared with dydrogesterone, the use of allylestrenol significantly reduced the rate of biochemical pregnancies (6.4% vs. 11.8%, P < 0.001) and multiple gestation rate (16.8% vs. 26.3%, P = 0.001). Moreover, endometrial thickness, morphology, and blood flow were significantly improved by allylestrenol treatment (all P < 0.05). Conclusions: Allylestrenol exhibited similar effects on clinical pregnancy rates and pregnancy outcomes as dydrogesterone. Moreover, allylestrenol can significantly reduce the biochemical pregnancy rate and improve the endometrial receptivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]