Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness of recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone alfa (r-hFSH-alfa) versus highly purified urinary human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG HP) in assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatments: a non-interventional study in Germany.

ABSTRACT:

Background

This study compared the effectiveness of recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone alfa (r-hFSH-alfa; GONAL-f^®) with urinary highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG HP; Menogon HP^®), during assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatments in Germany.

Methods

Data were collected from 71 German fertility centres between 01 January 2007 and 31 December 2012, for women undergoing a first stimulation cycle of ART treatment with r-hFSH-alfa or hMG HP. Primary outcomes were live birth, ongoing pregnancy and clinical pregnancy, based on cumulative data (fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfers), analysed per patient (pP), per complete cycle (pCC) and per first complete cycle (pFC). Secondary outcomes were pregnancy loss (analysed per clinical pregnancy), cancelled cycles (analysed pCC), total drug usage per oocyte retrieved and time-to-live birth (TTLB; per calendar week and per cycle).

Results

Twenty-eight thousand six hundred forty-one women initiated a first treatment cycle (r-hFSH-alfa: 17,725 [61.9%]; hMG HP: 10,916 [38.1%]). After adjustment for confounding variables, treatment with r-hFSH-alfa versus hMG HP was associated with a significantly higher probability of live birth (hazard ratio [HR]-pP [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 1.10 [1.04, 1.16]; HR-pCC [95% CI]: 1.13 [1.08, 1.19]; relative risk [RR]-pFC [95% CI]: 1.09 [1.05, 1.15], ongoing pregnancy (HR-pP [95% CI]: 1.10 [1.04, 1.16]; HR-pCC [95% CI]: 1.13 [1.08, 1.19]; RR-pFC [95% CI]: 1.10 [1.05, 1.15]) and clinical pregnancy (HR-pP [95% CI]: 1.10 [1.05, 1.14]; HR-pCC [95% CI]: 1.14 [1.10, 1.19]; RR-pFC [95% CI]: 1.10 [1.06, 1.14]). Women treated with r-hFSH-alfa versus hMG HP had no statistically significant difference in pregnancy loss (HR [95% CI]: 1.07 [0.98, 1.17], were less likely to have a cycle cancellation (HR [95% CI]: 0.91 [0.84, 0.99]) and had no statistically significant difference in TTLB when measured in weeks (HR [95% CI]: 1.02 [0.97, 1.07]; p = 0.548); however, r-hFSH-alfa was associated with a significantly shorter TTLB when measured in cycles versus hMG HP (HR [95% CI]: 1.07 [1.02, 1.13]; p = 0.003). There was an average of 47% less drug used per oocyte retrieved with r-hFSH-alfa versus hMG HP.

Conclusions

This large (> 28,000 women), real-world study demonstrated significantly higher rates of cumulative live birth, cumulative ongoing pregnancy and cumulative clinical pregnancy with r-hFSH-alfa versus hMG HP.

SUBMITTER: Buhler KF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8207759 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study questionIn women undergoing IVF or ICSI cycles, do recombinant gonadotrophins differ from urinary-derived highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin (HP-hMG) or highly purified follicle-stimulating hormone (HP-FSH) in the total amount of gonadotrophins required to reach a live birth?Summary answerThe difference between recombinant and urinary-derived HP-hMG or HP-FSH in the required amount to reach a live birth in IVF/ICSI cycles appears small.What is known alreadyAt present, gynecologists can choose between recombinant FSH (rFSH), urinary-derived HP-hMG and HP-FSH. These products are equally effective and safe, but it is unknown how these gonadotrophins compare in terms of IU required to reach a live birth.Study design size and durationWe conducted a search in Medline, Embase and CINAHL up to July 2018. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared rFSH with HP-hMG or HP-FSH for ovarian stimulation in couples scheduled for IVF or ICSI treatment. From each randomized trial, we extracted the outcome data and information on participants, methods, interventions and funding.Participants/materials setting and methodsWomen undergoing ovarian stimulation with rFSH, HP-hMG or HP-FSH were included. We extracted data for the mean amount of gonadotrophins with SD, clinical pregnancy rate, live birth rate and cumulative live birth rate per woman from the included RCTs. We summarized these outcomes by calculating the individual and pooled mean difference (MD) or relative risk (RR) with 95% CI. We used the Review Manager software to perform the meta-analyses. We applied a random effect model to pool the data. We estimated the total amount of gonadotrophins used per extra live birth by STATA 14.2 and R software.Main results and the role of chanceA total of 28 studies with 7553 women were included in this review, of which 24 studies provided information on the total amount of gonadotrophins per woman who started an IVF/ICSI cycle. The total amount of gonadotrophins varied significantly between studies. The MDs in total amount were -37 IU (seven studies; N = 3220; 95% CI, -115 to 41; I 2 = 68%) for rFSH versus HP-hMG and -31 IU (17 studies; N = 3629; 95% CI, -290 to 228; I 2 = 97%) for rFSH versus HP-FSH. For rFSH versus HP-hMG, the RR for clinical pregnancy, live birth and cumulative live birth were 0.90 (95% CI, 0.81-1.00), 0.88 (95% CI, 0.78-0.99) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.80-1.04), respectively. For rFSH versus HP-FSH, the RR for clinical pregnancy and live birth were 1.03 (95% CI, 0.94-1.13) and 1.03 (95% CI, 0.90-1.18), respectively; the data on cumulative live birth rate were lacking. The estimated difference in mean gonadotrophin amount per extra live birth was 789 IU (95% CI, -9.5 to 1570) for rFSH versus HP-hMG and -365 IU (95% CI, -2675 to 1945) for rFSH versus HP-FSH.Limitations reasons for cautionThere was severe heterogeneity in the total amount of gonadotrophins between studies. A small fraction of women did not start gonadotrophin treatment; this was usually not accounted for in the provided mean amount of gonadotrophins per study and might have affected the averaged total amount of gonadotrophins but is unlikely to have affected the differences in the amount between rFSH and HP-hMG or HP-FSH.Wider implications of the findingsThe differences in the required amount to reach a live birth between rFSH, HP-hMG and HP-FSH appear to be small. Decision-making should be based on convenience, availability, actual costs and patient preferences.Study funding/competing interestsThe authors declare no conflict of interest. No external funding was either sought or obtained for this study.Registration numberProspero CRD42016038238.

Project description:BackgroundThe potential benefit of adding recombinant human luteinizing hormone (r-hLH) to recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone (r-hFSH) during ovarian stimulation is a subject of debate, although there is evidence that it may benefit certain subpopulations, e.g. poor responders.MethodsA systematic review and a meta-analysis were performed. Three databases (MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL) were searched (from 1990 to 2011). Prospective, parallel-, comparative-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in women aged 18-45 years undergoing in vitro fertilization, intracytoplasmic sperm injection or both, treated with gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues and r-hFSH plus r-hLH or r-hFSH alone were included. The co-primary endpoints were number of oocytes retrieved and clinical pregnancy rate. Analyses were conducted for the overall population and for prospectively identified patient subgroups, including patients with poor ovarian response (POR).ResultsIn total, 40 RCTs (6443 patients) were included in the analysis. Data on the number of oocytes retrieved were reported in 41 studies and imputed in two studies. Therefore, data were available from 43 studies (r-hFSH plus r-hLH, n=3113; r-hFSH, n=3228) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (all randomly allocated patients, including imputed data). Overall, no significant difference in the number of oocytes retrieved was found between the r-hFSH plus r-hLH and r-hFSH groups (weighted mean difference -0.03; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.41 to 0.34). However, in poor responders, significantly more oocytes were retrieved with r-hFSH plus r-hLH versus r-hFSH alone (n=1077; weighted mean difference +0.75 oocytes; 95% CI 0.14-1.36). Significantly higher clinical pregnancy rates were observed with r-hFSH plus r-hLH versus r-hFSH alone in the overall population analysed in this review (risk ratio [RR] 1.09; 95% CI 1.01-1.18) and in poor responders (n=1179; RR 1.30; 95% CI 1.01-1.67; ITT population); the observed difference was more pronounced in poor responders.ConclusionsThese data suggest that there is a relative increase in the clinical pregnancy rates of 9% in the overall population and 30% in poor responders. In conclusion, this meta-analysis suggests that the addition of r-hLH to r-hFSH may be beneficial for women with POR.

Project description:BackgroundCompared to adult studies, studies which involve the treatment of pediatric congenital hypogonadotropic hypogonadism (CHH) are limited and no universal treatment regimen is available. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG)/human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) therapy for treating male adolescents with CHH.MethodsMale adolescent CHH patients were treated with hCG/hMG (n = 20) or a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) pump (n = 21). The treatment was divided into a study phase (0-3 months) and a follow-up phase (3-12 months). The testicular volume (TV), penile length (PL), penis diameter (PD), and sex hormone levels were compared between the two groups. The TV and other indicators between the groups were analyzed using a t-test (equal variance) or a rank sum test (unequal variance).ResultsBefore treatment, there was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of the biochemistry, hormones, and other demographic indicators. After 3 months of treatment, the TV of the hCG/hMG and GnRH groups increased to 5.1 ± 2.3 mL and 4.1 ± 1.8 mL, respectively; however, the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05, t = 1.394). The PL reached 6.9 ± 1.8 cm and 5.1 ± 1.6 cm (P < 0.05, t = 3.083), the PD reached 2.4 ± 0.5 cm and 2.0 ± 0.6 cm (P < 0.05, t = 2.224), respectively, in the two groups. At the end of 6 months of treatment, biomarkers were in normal range in the two groups. Compared with the GnRH group, the testosterone (T) level and growth of PL and PD were significantly greater in the hCG/hMG group (all P < 0.05). While the TV of both groups increased, the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05, t = 0.314). After 9 to 12 months of treatment, the T level was higher in the hCG/hMG group. Other parameters did not exhibit a statistical difference.ConclusionsThe hCG/hMG regimen is feasible and effective for treating male adolescents with CHH. The initial 3 months of treatment may be a window to optimally observe the strongest effects of therapy. Furthermore, results from the extended time-period showed positive outcomes at the 1-year mark; however, the long-term effectiveness, strengths, and weaknesses of the hCG/hMG regimen require further research.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02880280; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02880280.