Use of various gonadotropin and biosimilar formulations for in vitro fertilization cycles: results of a worldwide Web-based survey

Clinical Outcomes in Patients Receiving Originator Follitropin Alfa and Follitropin Alfa Biosimilars in Real-world Clinical Practice: A Retrospective Study

Background

Biosimilar drugs have broadened the treatment options in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Real-world data comparing clinical outcomes of originator follitropin alfa (Gonal-f®) with its biosimilars are required to enrich the body of evidence for clinical decision-making on choice of drug.

Aims

To compare the ART outcomes in patients receiving originator follitropin (Gonal-f®) and its biosimilars in clinical setting.

Settings and Design

Medical records of 364 infertile women who underwent ART between 2016 and 2020 at Akanksha Hospital and Research Institute, Gujrat, India, were retrospectively analysed.

Materials and Methods

Participants were divided into two cohorts based on treatment (Gonal-f® cohort; N = 174 and biosimilar cohort; N = 190), each cohort further subdivided into group A (age <35 years) and group B (age ≥35 years). Fresh or frozen embryo transfer was performed as per the standard procedures of the clinic. Pregnancy rates and live birth rate (LBR) were the primary main outcome measures in this study.

Statistical Analysis Used

Descriptive statistics and Chi-square test were used for analysis.

Results

The number of oocytes retrieved from Gonal-f® and biosimilar cohorts were comparable (13.3 vs. 14.4). Compared to biosimilars, Gonal-f® treatment resulted in higher yield of cleavage stage and blastocyst stage embryos, and the proportion of women with good quality embryos was higher in the Gonal-f® cohort than the biosimilar cohort (83.3% vs. 69.5%). Patients receiving Gonal-f® reported higher pregnancy rates (59.2% vs. 39.7%) and LBR (43% vs. 17.7%) compared to those receiving biosimilars.

Conclusions

Gonal-f® (originator follitropin) treatment could result in higher pregnancy rates and LBR in comparison to biosimilars in real-world setting.

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

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.

The pharmacoeconomic impact of follitropin alpha biosimilars in IVF therapy in Europe: a report of the literature

Introduction: To study the impact of biosimilars in assisted reproductive treatments, we performed a review of the literature. Biosimilars are a bioequivalent chemical drug referred to the original. Their production is strongly requested in order to reduce drug cost and reduce health economic impact on national health system. In assisted reproductive treatments different gonadotropin biosimilars are being produced.Areas covered: For this reason, we performed a review of the literature on follitropin alfa Gonal-F biosimilar, Ovaleap and Bemfola, to assess their cost efficacy in national health system. Cost effective (CE) analysis and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were used as parameters for biosimilar impact evaluation in the national health system economy. In particular, they had only slight impact on cost reduction of recombinant follitropin alfa products in Europe.Expert opinion: considering cost-effective analysis, Gonal-F remains the first choice for national health systems. However, well-designed powered methods are strongly needed to assess biosimilars cost-effectiveness.

Human Recombinant FSH and Its Biosimilars: Clinical Efficacy, Safety, and Cost-Effectiveness in Controlled Ovarian Stimulation for In Vitro Fertilization

Exogenous human follicle-stimulating hormone (hFSH), either derived from extraction and purification from the urine or obtained by recombinant technology in the form of follitropin α, β and δ (rFSH), has been used for decades in the treatment of infertility. The main applications of FSH treatment in the woman have been, and still are, ovulation induction in oligo-anovulatory subjects, and stimulation of the development of a cohort of follicles in patients undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for in vitro fertilization (IVF). In the last years, two biosimilars of follitropin alfa, rFSH compounds structurally and functionally similar to the originator, have been approved and marketed for clinical use in Europe. Moreover, some other rFSH biosimilars are currently under investigation. The objective of this article is to review the available evidences comparing the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of rFSH follitropin alpha originator with its biosimilars, discussing the clinical trials that allowed biosimilars to get registration and marketing authorization.

Effectiveness and safety of follitropin alfa (Ovaleap®) for ovarian stimulation using a GnRH antagonist protocol in real-world clinical practice: a multicenter, prospective, open, non-interventional assisted reproductive technology study

BACKGROUND

The use of recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone (r-hFSH) in ovarian stimulation protocols for infertility treatment in assisted reproductive technology (ART) clinical practice is well established. More recent advancements include the availability of biosimilar r-hFSH products, which expand the choices available to healthcare practitioners and patients. Better understanding of how such a product contributes to routine clinical practice is valuable to help prescribers make informed treatment choices. The objective of this study was to examine the effectiveness and safety of ovarian stimulation (OS) with follitropin alfa (Ovaleap®) for routine IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment in gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist cycles in real-world ART clinical practice.

METHODS

This non-interventional, multicenter, prospective study was initiated in 34 specialized reproductive medicine centers in Germany. Eligible women were 18-40 years old with a body mass index < 30 kg/m², menstrual cycle 24-35 days and anti-Müllerian hormone ≥1 ng/mL, who were undergoing a first OS cycle exclusively with Ovaleap® during routine ART using a GnRH antagonist protocol. Primary effectiveness outcomes were number of retrieved oocytes after OS and clinical pregnancy rate (CPR). Secondary outcomes included fertilization rate, number of transferred embryos, live birth delivery rate, safety, and user satisfaction with the Ovaleap® pen.

RESULT(S)

Of 507 women screened, 463 received at least 1 dose of Ovaleap® and 439 had Visit 2 data (per protocol population; PPP). The mean(±SD) number of retrieved oocytes was 11.8 ± 7.2 (PPP). The CPR among women with documented embryo transfer was 41.3% (158/383), resulting in a live birth delivery rate of 31.6% (138/437) among PPP patients with available follow-up information. Overall, 8.6% (40/463) of women reported ≥1 adverse drug reaction. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome occurred in 23 (5.0%) patients, rated mild in 14 (3.0%), moderate in 8 (1.7%), and severe in 1 (0.2%). Patients reported high user satisfaction and high convenience with use of the Ovaleap® pen.

CONCLUSION

The effectiveness and safety of OS with Ovaleap® in a GnRH antagonist protocol were extended to real-world ART clinical practice for the first time.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered on 22 June 2016 (retrospectively registered) at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02809989).

Management Strategies for POSEIDON Groups 3 and 4

In the POSEIDON classification, patients belonging to groups 3 and 4 share the same common feature of a poor ovarian reserve which independently of age renders them at high risk of a poor reproductive outcome. Overall, POSEIDON groups 1-4 constitute approximately 47% of patients attending assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment. With the increasing delay in childbearing, POSEIDON group 4 seems to increase in numbers now in some centers constituting more than 50% of the total POSEIDON population, whereas group 3 patients constitute approximately 10%. Both POSEIDON groups 3 and 4 patients require special attention as regards pre-treatment strategy, ovarian stimulation, adjuvant treatment, and ovulation trigger strategy in order to optimize the probability of having at least one euploid blastocyst for transfer. Although more evidence is needed, recent advances seem to have increased the reproductive outcomes in the poor prognosis patient. The key to success is individualization in all steps of ART treatment. Herein, we review the recent evidence for the management of POSEIDON groups 3 and 4.