Bye-bye urinary gonadotrophins?

Risk of infection is not the main problem

P.G. Crosignani

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Milan, Via della commenda 12, 20122 Milan, Italy. E-mail: piergiorgio.crosignani{at}unimi.it


    Abstract
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 References
 
The risk of infection from prion proteins in urinary preparations of human gonadotrophins is uncertain—and is of lesser importance than the risk of multiple pregnancies and issues of cost.

Key words: prion proteins/recombinant FSH/urinary gonadotrophins


    Introduction
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 References
 
Compared with recombinant FSH, urinary gonadotrophins have no clinical benefits (Daya and Gunby, 1999Go; Matorras et al., 2000Go), but they are less expensive. In fact, in some countries the cost of the two preparations is consistently different. For all customers, but especially for the ‘public’ programmes of ovarian stimulation, this is an important limiting factor, since the higher cost reduces the resources for other health programmes.

In addition, the urinary preparations of human gonadotrophins have been widely used for 40 years and no infections have been associated with their injection, even in the past when the urinary extracts were rather ‘impure’ (Donini et al., 1949Go). No, the uncertain risk of infections currently does not represent the main problem of ovarian stimulation. Instead, the major concern is the real, well-known risk of twin pregnancies associated with the induced multiple ovulation (Gleicher et al., 2000Go).

So, bye-bye urinary gonadotrophins? I am sure that these preparations will disappear as soon as cheaper recombinant ones become available. On the contrary, the risk of iatrogenic twinning will continue until a milder form of ovarian stimulation is used (Edwards et al., 1997Go).

Curiously, reading the results of the publications in the area of gonadotrophin-induced cycles, multiple gestations are still wrongly reported as a therapeutic success. It is time to recategorize these as unwanted and feared complications.


    References
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 References
 
Daya, S, and Gunby, J. (1999) Recombinant versus urinary follicle stimulating hormone for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction. Hum. Reprod., 14, 2207–2215.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Donini, P. and Montezemolo, R. (1949) Gonadotropina preipofisaria e gonadotropina preipofisaria-simile umana. Rass. Clin. Terap. Sc. Affini, 48, 143–163.

Edwards, R.G., Lobo, R.A. and Bouchard, P. (1997) Why delay the obvious need for milder forms of ovarian stimulation? Hum. Reprod., 12, 399–401.[ISI][Medline]

Gleicher N., Oleske, D.M., Tur-Kaspa, I., Vidali, A. and Karande, V. (2000) Reducing the risk of high-order multiple pregnancy after ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins. N. Engl. J. Med., 343, 2–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Matorras, R., Recio, V., Corcóstegui, B. and Rodríguez-Escudero, F.J. (2000). Recombinant human FSH versus highly purified urinary FSH: a randomized study in intrauterine insemination with husbands' spermatozoa. Hum. Reprod., 15, 1231–1234.[Abstract/Free Full Text]





This Article
Abstract
FREE Full Text (PDF )
Alert me when this article is cited
Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Email this article to a friend
Similar articles in this journal
Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Similar articles in PubMed
Alert me to new issues of the journal
Add to My Personal Archive
Download to citation manager
Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Articles by Crosignani, P.G.
PubMed
PubMed Citation
Articles by Crosignani, P.G.