Livio Casarini1,2*
Manuela Simoni1,2,3- 1Unit of Endocrinology, Department of Biomedical, Metabolic and Neural Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy
- 2Center for Genomic Research-University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy
- 3Unit of Endocrinology, Department of Medical Specialties, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Modena-Baggiovara Hospital, Modena, Italy
A Commentary on
FSH receptor N680S genotype-guided gonadotropin choice increases cumulative pregnancy and live birth rates after in vitro fertilization
By Hjelmér I, Nilsson M, Henic E, Jędrzejczak P, Nenonen H, Ozegowska K, Giwercman A, Kitlinski ML and Giwercman YL (2025) Front. Endocrinol. 16:1576090. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2025.1576090
Introduction
This is a comment on the findings described by Hjelmér et al., 2025 (1) and their proposal to use urinary FSH (uFSH) preparations to improve assisted reproduction technique (ART) outcomes in women homozygous for the FSH receptor (FSHR) “680Ser” polymorphic variant (rs6166). We aimed to appraise methodological flaws and interpretative issues in the study by Hjelmér et al. Relevant concerns arise from the interpretation of the results and their use to support the conclusion that uFSH should be recommended to treat genotyped FSHR 680Ser carriers.
Inaccurate terminology leads to misinterpretation of results
The commercial preparation Menopur (Ferring Pharmaceuticals SA, Saint-Prex, Switzerland), improperly defined by the authors as a uFSH, is a mixture of FSH and LH obtained from menopausal women, with the addition of hCG (2), and should be indicated as “menopausal gonadotropins” (hMG). uFSH drugs contain exclusively FSH molecules purified from urine, which is not the case for Menopur (3). Although this may appear to be a semantic issue, inaccurate terminology may have led to the misinterpretation that FSH of urinary origin elicits an in vivo response that could be, at least in part, attributable to LH and hCG. This may underlie some of the result misinterpretations discussed below.
In vitro data do not support authors’ conclusion
In their study, Hjelmér and colleagues performed in vitro experiments intended to support their clinical observations. They measured cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) production in transfected COS-1 cells treated with recombinant FSH (rFSH) and hMG. However, these cells express only FSHR, preventing the action of LH/hCG molecules, which exert their effects through the LH/hCG receptor (LHCGR). Therefore, this model is not representative of clinical ovarian stimulation, in which granulosa cells express both FSHR and LHCGR, and theca cells express LHCGR (4). LH/hCG are present in Menopur but absent in the rFSH reference drug (Gonal-F, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany) (2). The efficacy of FSH and hCG varies considerably depending on whether LHCGR is co-expressed with FSHR [see Table 2 in ref (2)]. However, the in vitro system used by Hjelmér et al. does not allow detection of the contribution of LH/hCG to cAMP activation because of the lack of LHCGR expression.
Once it is established that the cellular response shown in Figure 2 (1) is mediated by FSH molecules only, it is not surprising that cAMP levels differ between the hMG and rFSH groups in FSHR-expressing COS-1 cells. These considerations raise concerns about the actual FSH concentration administered in vitro and how these doses were determined. Specifically, the authors used international units (IU) rather than molarity, introducing a bias: IU is not a measure of hormone quantity, as it reflects in vivo activity in rodents (5), whereas molarity is more appropriate for in vitro experiments because it reflects the number of molecules. There is no direct proportionality between Menopur and Gonal-F IU values, as they are based on the activity of different molecules [Table 2 in ref. (2)]. By using IU in vitro, the authors applied different concentrations of FSH, with a clear overdosing in the Menopur-treated group. In addition, no information is provided on the stimulation volume, making it impossible to determine the actual hormone concentration used, while the reported quantity (up to 90 IU) appears extremely high for in vitro experiments.
The in vitro data also present methodological and statistical issues, as a t-test was inappropriately used to analyze multiple groups. The authors compared three groups (treatments: “uFSH,” “rFSH,” and “no FSH”) across two variables (FSH dose: 0, 1, 10, and 90 IU). A two-way ANOVA, or a non-parametric equivalent such as the Kruskal–Wallis test, should have been used instead of a t-test, which is limited to two-group comparisons and may lead to type I errors when applied to multiple testing (6). Finally, the number of independent replicates and the buffer volume used for cell treatment are not reported, and no data are shown for COS-1 cells expressing FSHR 680Asn or FSHR 680Asn/680Ser.
In summary, insufficient information is provided to allow the in vitro experiments to be reproduced or correctly interpreted. Therefore, these results do not support the authors’ conclusions.
Major flaws of the clinical study
The main problem is the lack of a clinical study registration number, which prevents evaluation of whether the experimental design was modified a posteriori and biased by data selection, potentially performed after the initial analyses did not reveal any difference. This observation is particularly relevant given the retrospective nature of the study (1).
Other key information is missing. For instance, the drug used to treat non-genotyped women is not indicated, preventing its use as a control group. Results may be biased by gonadotropin dosing, which is higher in the hMG group [see Table 1 in the paper (1)]. Details on how adjustments for BMI, age, and fertilization method were performed are also missing. Other relevant data impacting ART prognosis are not reported, such as antral follicle count (AFC) (7). In summary, the study design is not appropriate for testing the authors’ hypothesis.
Opposite data
The authors did not reconcile their results with the existing literature.
There is no clear evidence demonstrating that uFSH elicits different responses than rFSH, weakening the rationale of the study by Hjelmér et al. Commercial FSH preparations are mixtures of different glycoforms of the same molecule, but they rarely trigger clear preparation-specific responses due to the lack of substantial diversity in overall composition and half-life among these mixtures (3, 8, 9). Many clinical studies support or refute the superiority of rFSH vs uFSH, and vice versa (10–15). However, they have not produced converging evidence for the superiority of one drug in improving clinical outcomes (14). Instead, previous findings consistently support that differences between rFSH and hMG are due to LH/hCG (16), as these ligands modulate the response to FSH through LHCGR activation (17), regardless of FSHR genotype. This concept was demonstrated in a large in vitro dataset (18), in which human primary granulosa lutein cells were treated with rFSH in the presence and absence of recombinant LH (Luveris, Merck KGaA). LH improved cellular responses regardless of FSHR genotype, suggesting that LH/hCG addition may have an indication in poor/sub-responder patients, rather than in a subgroup of FSHR 680Ser carriers (18) (see Supplementary Tables S3, S4). Rigorous meta-analysis (19) and a registry-based study (20) consolidated this view, showing that LHCGR ligands may be used to personalize FSH treatments when the ovarian response to FSH needs to be optimized.
In conclusion, the study by Hjelmér et al. fails to provide indications for the use of hMG—and even less so uFSH—based on FSHR polymorphism. Improper study design, missing key information, lack of support from in vitro experiments, and data misinterpretations undermine the authors’ conclusions. Converging data suggest that LH/hCG addition to FSH may benefit ART patients with poor/sub-response to FSH, regardless of FSHR genotype.
Author contributions
LC: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MS: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Hjelmér I, Nilsson M, Henic E, Jędrzejczak P, Nenonen H, Ozegowska K, et al. FSH receptor N680S genotype-guided gonadotropin choice increases cumulative pregnancy and live birth rates after in vitro fertilization. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). (2025) 16:1576090. doi: 10.3389/FENDO.2025.1576090
2. Casarini L, Riccetti L, Paradiso E, Benevelli R, Lazzaretti C, Sperduti S, et al. Two human menopausal gonadotrophin (hMG) preparations display different early signaling in vitro. Mol Hum Reprod. (2020) 26:894–905. doi: 10.1093/MOLEHR/GAAA070
3. Riccetti L, Sperduti S, Lazzaretti C, Klett D, De Pascali F, Paradiso E, et al. Glycosylation pattern and in vitro bioactivity of reference follitropin alfa and biosimilars. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). (2019) 10:503. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2019.00503
4. Liu YX and Hsueh AJW. Synergism between granulosa and theca-interstitial cells in estrogen biosynthesis by gonadotropin-treated rat ovaries: Studies on the two-cell, two-gonadotropin hypothesis using steroid antisera. Biol Reprod. (1986) 35:27–36. doi: 10.1095/biolreprod35.1.27
5. Steelman SL and Pohley FM. Assay of the follicle stimulating hormone based on the augmentation with human chorionic gonadotropin. Endocrinology. (1953) 53:604–16. doi: 10.1210/endo-53-6-604
6. Mitchell PJ. Experimental Design and Statistical Analysis for Pharmacology and the Biomedical Sciences. John Wiley & Sons, Inc (2022). doi: 10.1002/9781119437642
7. Alviggi C, Andersen CY, Buehler K, Conforti A, De Placido G, Esteves SC, et al. A new more detailed stratification of low responders to ovarian stimulation: from a poor ovarian response to a low prognosis concept. Fertil Steril. (2016) 105:1452–3. doi: 10.1016/J.FERTNSTERT.2016.02.005
8. Le Cotonnec JY, Porchet HC, Beltrami V, Khan A, Toon S, and Rowland M. Clinical pharmacology of recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH). I. Comparative pharmacokinetics with urinary human FSH. Fertil Steril. (1994) 61:669–78. doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(16)56644-8
9. Karlsson MO, Wade JR, Loumaye E, and Munafo A. The population pharmacokinetics of recombinant- and urinary-human follicle stimulating hormone in women. Br J Clin Pharmacol. (1998) 45:13–20. doi: 10.1046/J.1365-2125.1998.00644.X
10. Matorras R, Osuna C, Exposito A, Crisol L, and Pijoan JI. Recombinant FSH versus highly purified FSH in intrauterine insemination: Systematic review and metaanalysis. Fertil Steril. (2011) 95:1937–42. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.02.030
11. Abd-Elaziz K, Duijkers I, Stöckl L, Dietrich B, Klipping C, Eckert K, et al. A new fully human recombinant FSH (follitropin epsilon): Two phase i randomized placebo and comparator-controlled pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic trials. Hum Reprod. (2017) 32:1639–47. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dex220
12. Lledó B, Dapena P, Ortiz JA, Morales R, Llacer J, and Bernabeu R. Clinical efficacy of recombinant versus highly purified follicle-stimulating hormone according to follicle-stimulating hormone receptor genotype. Pharmacogenet Genomics. (2016) 26:288–93. doi: 10.1097/FPC.0000000000000215
13. Bergandi L, Canosa S, Carosso AR, Paschero C, Gennarelli G, Silvagno F, et al. Human recombinant FSH and its biosimilars: Clinical efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness in controlled ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization. Pharmaceuticals. (2020) 13:1–23. doi: 10.3390/ph13070136
14. Lunenfeld B, Bilger W, Longobardi S, Alam V, D’Hooghe T, and Sunkara SK. The development of gonadotropins for clinical use in the treatment of infertility. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). (2019) 10:429. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2019.00429
15. Liu X, Hao C, and Wang J. Efficacy of highly purified urinary FSH versus recombinant FSH in Chinese women over 37 years undergoing assisted reproductive techniques. Int J Fertil Steril. (2015) 8:385–92. doi: 10.22074/ijfs.2015.4178
16. Bosch E, Alamá P, Romero JL, Marí M, Labarta E, and Pellicer A. Serum progesterone is lower in ovarian stimulation with highly purified HMG compared to recombinant FSH owing to a different regulation of follicular steroidogenesis: A randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. (2024) 39:393–402. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dead251
17. Casarini L, Riccetti L, De Pascali F, Nicoli A, Tagliavini S, Trenti T, et al. Follicle-stimulating hormone potentiates the steroidogenic activity of chorionic gonadotropin and the anti-apoptotic activity of luteinizing hormone in human granulosa-lutein cells. vitro. Mol Cell Endocrinol. (2016) 422:103–14. doi: 10.1016/J.MCE.2015.12.008
18. Sperduti S, Paradiso E, Anzivino C, Lazzaretti C, Limoncella S, D’Alessandro S, et al. LH increases the response to FSH in granulosa-lutein cells from sub/poor-responder patients. vitro. Hum Reprod. (2023) 38:103–12. doi: 10.1093/HUMREP/DEAC246
19. Santi D, Casarini L, Alviggi C, and Simoni M. Efficacy of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) alone, FSH + Luteinizing hormone, human menopausal gonadotropin or FSH + Human chorionic gonadotropin on assisted reproductive technology outcomes in the “Personalized” Medicine era: A meta-analysis. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). (2017) 8:114. doi: 10.3389/FENDO.2017.00114
Keywords: FSH, FSHR polymorphism, hMG, recombinant, urinary
Citation: Casarini L and Simoni M (2026) Commentary: FSH receptor N680S genotype-guided gonadotropin choice increases cumulative pregnancy and live birth rates after in vitro fertilization. Front. Endocrinol. 16:1706120. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2025.1706120
Received: 15 September 2025; Accepted: 16 December 2025; Revised: 09 December 2025;
Published: 12 January 2026.
Edited by:
Human Mousavi Fatemi, ART Fertility Clinics, United Arab EmiratesReviewed by:
Tsung-Hsien Lee, Chung Shan Medical University, TaiwanCopyright © 2026 Casarini and Simoni. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Livio Casarini, bGl2aW8uY2FzYXJpbmlAdW5pbW9yZS5pdA==