article = {CEI-2022-1-101}
title = {Luteinizing Hormone and Ovarian Stimulation for In-Vitro Fertilization: Do Science and Business Always Agree?}
journal = {Clinical and Experimental Investigations}
year = {2022}
issn = {2674-5054}
doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.31487/j.CEI.2022.01.01}
url = {https://www.sciencerepository.org/luteinizing-hormone-and-ovarian_CEI-2022-1-101 
author = {Shahar Kol,Peter Humaidan,}
keywords = {IVF, gonadotropins, GnRH analogs, LH supplementation, endocrinology}
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.}