There's still a lot of confusion as to whether we should
use urinary gonadotropins or recombinant gonadotropins in IVF for superovulation ( = helping patients grow lots of follicles).
Historically, we used urinary gonadotropins for many
years. These are biological products , extracted from the urine of menopausal
women , and they still work very well.
The problem is that there is a lot of batch to batch
variation , because the quality of the extracted hormones is not always consistent,
and this can create a lot of problems, because patients don't respond well to
the superovulation. This is why it's so important for doctors to insist on
seeing the bioassay report of every batch of urinary gonadotropins which they
use for their patients.
This is why the newer advance is to use recombinant DNA
technology to produce rec FSH in the lab in vitro. These are much purer molecules, but the problem is they
are more expensive , and this adds to the patient's financial burden .
This is why it's
important to use a judicious mix of the two.
Their efficacy as far as growing follicles is exactly the
same, but some doctors worry because of the LH which urinary gonadotropins
contain , because LH is considered to be a villain in IVF. However, in clinical practice, it makes
absolutely no difference to IVF outcomes at all.
Want to make sure you are getting the best possible IVF
treatment ? You can download the IVF comic book free at