Dataset Information

Retrospective Monocentric Clinical Study on Male Infertility: Comparison between Two Different Therapeutic Schemes Using Follicle-Stimulating Hormone.

ABSTRACT: Follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) is a therapeutic option in patients with idiopathic oligozoospermia and normal FSH serum levels. However, few studies have evaluated which dose of FSH is more effective. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of the two most frequently used FSH treatment regimens: 75 IU daily vs. 150 IU three times a week. Patients were retrospectively assigned to two groups. The first group (n = 24) was prescribed highly purified FSH (hpFSH) 75 IU/daily (Group A), and the second group (n = 24) was prescribed hpFSH 150 IU three times a week (Group B) for three months. Before and after treatment, each patient underwent semen analysis, evaluation of the percentage of DNA-fragmented spermatozoa, assessment of testicular volume (by ultrasonography), and measurement of FSH and total testosterone (TT) serum levels. Treatment with hpFSH significantly improved conventional sperm parameters. In detail, sperm concentration increased significantly after treatment only in Group A, whereas total sperm count, percentage of spermatozoa with progressive motility, normal morphology, or alive improved significantly in both groups. Interestingly, the percentage of sperm DNA fragmentation decreased significantly in both groups after treatment with hpFSH. FSH serum levels were expectably higher at the end of the treatment than before hpFSH was administered to both groups. Remarkably, TT serum levels only increased significantly in Group A. Finally, testicular volume was significantly higher in Group A after treatment, while it did not change significantly compared to baseline in Group B. The percentage of FSH responders did not differ significantly between the two groups (8/24 vs. 6/24). The daily administration of hpFSH 75 IU seems more effective than using 150 IU three times a week. However, this therapeutic scheme implies a higher number of injections and slightly higher costs.

SUBMITTER: Condorelli RA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8233778 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPreviously, we reported a model for assessing ovarian reserves using 4 predictors: anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) level, antral follicle count (AFC), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) level, and female age. This model is referred as the AAFA (anti-Müllerian hormone level-antral follicle count-follicle-stimulating hormone level-age) model.ObjectiveThis study aims to explore the possibility of establishing a model for predicting ovarian reserves using only 3 factors: AMH level, FSH level, and age. The proposed model is referred to as the AFA (anti-Müllerian hormone level-follicle-stimulating hormone level-age) model.MethodsOocytes from ovarian cycles stimulated by gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist were collected retrospectively at our reproductive center. Poor ovarian response (<5 oocytes retrieved) was defined as an outcome variable. The AFA model was built using a multivariable logistic regression analysis on data from 2017; data from 2018 were used to validate the performance of AFA model. Measurements of the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predicative value were used to evaluate the performance of the model. To rank the ovarian reserves of the whole population, we ranked the subgroups according to the predicted probability of poor ovarian response and further divided the 60 subgroups into 4 clusters, A-D, according to cut-off values consistent with the AAFA model.ResultsThe AUCs of the AFA and AAFA models were similar for the same validation set, with values of 0.853 (95% CI 0.841-0.865) and 0.850 (95% CI 0.838-0.862), respectively. We further ranked the ovarian reserves according to their predicted probability of poor ovarian response, which was calculated using our AFA model. The actual incidences of poor ovarian response in groups from A-D in the AFA model were 0.037 (95% CI 0.029-0.046), 0.128 (95% CI 0.099-0.165), 0.294 (95% CI 0.250-0.341), and 0.624 (95% CI 0.577-0.669), respectively. The order of ovarian reserve from adequate to poor followed the order from A to D. The clinical pregnancy rate, live-birth rate, and specific differences in groups A-D were similar when predicted using the AFA and AAFA models.ConclusionsThis AFA model for assessing the true ovarian reserve was more convenient, cost-effective, and objective than our original AAFA model.

Dataset Information

Retrospective Monocentric Clinical Study on Male Infertility: Comparison between Two Different Therapeutic Schemes Using Follicle-Stimulating Hormone.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets