{"title":"促黄体激素和卵巢刺激用于体外受精:科学和商业总是一致吗?","authors":"S. Kol, P. Humaidan","doi":"10.31487/j.cei.2022.01.01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The current commentary paper follows the historical introduction of gonadotropins and gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues to the in-vitro fertilization (IVF) market. We maintain that business decisions significantly influenced research and development; however, pharma decisions did not always align with physiology and clinical interests. Specifically, the never-ending debate on the issue of luteinizing hormone (LH) supplementation during ovarian stimulation was repeatedly studied using population-based randomized controlled trials. However, LH activity supplementation is an endocrine issue and therefore, specific endocrine inclusion/exclusion criteria should be used when assessing the needs or not for LH in our “every-day” patients. We propose that the approach until now has defocused the research question and thus, also the debate and that there is a need to revisit physiology and clinical thinking if the LH supplementation issue is to be unravelled.","PeriodicalId":53255,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical and Experimental Investigations","volume":"59 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Luteinizing Hormone and Ovarian Stimulation for In-Vitro Fertilization: Do Science and Business Always Agree?\",\"authors\":\"S. Kol, P. Humaidan\",\"doi\":\"10.31487/j.cei.2022.01.01\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The current commentary paper follows the historical introduction of gonadotropins and gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues to the in-vitro fertilization (IVF) market. We maintain that business decisions significantly influenced research and development; however, pharma decisions did not always align with physiology and clinical interests. Specifically, the never-ending debate on the issue of luteinizing hormone (LH) supplementation during ovarian stimulation was repeatedly studied using population-based randomized controlled trials. However, LH activity supplementation is an endocrine issue and therefore, specific endocrine inclusion/exclusion criteria should be used when assessing the needs or not for LH in our “every-day” patients. We propose that the approach until now has defocused the research question and thus, also the debate and that there is a need to revisit physiology and clinical thinking if the LH supplementation issue is to be unravelled.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53255,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical and Experimental Investigations\",\"volume\":\"59 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical and Experimental Investigations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31487/j.cei.2022.01.01\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical and Experimental Investigations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31487/j.cei.2022.01.01","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Luteinizing Hormone and Ovarian Stimulation for In-Vitro Fertilization: Do Science and Business Always Agree?
The current commentary paper follows the historical introduction of gonadotropins and gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues to the in-vitro fertilization (IVF) market. We maintain that business decisions significantly influenced research and development; however, pharma decisions did not always align with physiology and clinical interests. Specifically, the never-ending debate on the issue of luteinizing hormone (LH) supplementation during ovarian stimulation was repeatedly studied using population-based randomized controlled trials. However, LH activity supplementation is an endocrine issue and therefore, specific endocrine inclusion/exclusion criteria should be used when assessing the needs or not for LH in our “every-day” patients. We propose that the approach until now has defocused the research question and thus, also the debate and that there is a need to revisit physiology and clinical thinking if the LH supplementation issue is to be unravelled.