A comparison of outcomes from in vitro fertilization cycles stimulated with either recombinant luteinizing hormone (LH) or human chorionic gonadotropin acting as an LH analogue delivered as human menopausal gonadotropins, in subjects with good or poor ovarian reserve: a retrospective analysis

What Was Tested

Researchers studied hCG (human chorionic gonadotropin) and HMG (Human Menopausal Gonadotropin) in this observational study publication.

To compare rates of pregnancy and IVF parameters in subjects who were stimulated with FSH plus recombinant human luteinizing hormone or menopausal gonadotropins.

To determine whether responses to type of LH differ in poor or good responders.

Who Took Part

The age groups tagged for this paper are adults, women only.

Subjects were women with good and poor ovarian reserve, who underwent in vitro fertilization during a 2 year period, as part of a long agonist (N=122), or microdose flair (N=79) protocol.

How the Study Was Run

The timeline in the abstract includes 2 years.

Retrospective analysis at a university-based fertility center.

What Was Measured

Topics PubMed links to this paper include Chorionic Gonadotropin, Embryo Transfer, Fertility Agents, Female, Fertilization in Vitro, Follicle Stimulating Hormone, Luteinizing Hormone and Menotropins.

The authors tagged it with the keywords Human menopausal gonadotropins, IVF outcomes, Ovarian stimulation and Recombinant luteinizing hormone.

What This Means in Plain Language

This is a observational study of hCG (human chorionic gonadotropin) and HMG (Human Menopausal Gonadotropin) over 2 years.

The abstract goes on to report its results in about 6 sentences; this page does not restate them, so read the paper for the findings and their limits.

The publication is from 2014 (European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology), a journal based in Ireland.

More context: the hCG (human chorionic gonadotropin) compound page and the HMG (Human Menopausal Gonadotropin) compound page, all human trials.