A 2:1 formulation of follitropin alfa and lutropin alfa in routine clinical practice: a large, multicentre, observational study

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).

Cost-effectiveness analysis on the use of rFSH + rLH for the treatment of anovulation in hypogonadotropic hypogonadal women

Background

Hypogonadotropic hypogonadal women are characterized by ovarian functionality deficiency, caused by low concentrations of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH). To recover reproduction functionality, recommended therapies for ovarian induction involve injections of FSH and LH medications.

Objective

Since important differences exist between recombinant and urinary gonadotropin therapies in terms of efficacy and cost, the objective of this study was to develop a cost-effectiveness model to compare recombinant FSH (rFSH) + recombinant LH (rLH) and highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin (HP-HMG).

Methods

A Markov model was developed, considering three cycles of therapy; probability of pregnancy and miscarriage were considered, and the efficacy was evaluated in terms of pregnancy occurrence. The perspective of the model was that of the Italian Health Service, so only direct cost (drugs, specialist visits, patient examinations, and hospitalizations) were included.

Results

rFSH + rLH is associated with a higher total cost (€3,453.50) and higher efficacy (0.87) compared with HP-HMG (€2,719.70 and 0.50). rFSH + rLH generated an incremental cost effectiveness ratio equal to €2,007.30 compared to HP-HMG; the average cost per pregnancy is estimated to be €3,990.00 for recombinant strategy and €5,439.80 for urinary strategy. Results of probabilistic sensitivity analysis were consistent with the abovementioned findings.

Conclusion

Despite the higher acquisition cost in comparison to HP-HMG, rFSH + rLH resulted in a higher pregnancy rate, which makes it the recommended choice when considering cost-effectiveness of LH in supporting FSH-induced follicular gonadotropins in hypogonadotropic hypogonadal women.

A large, multicentre, observational, post-marketing surveillance study of the 2:1 formulation of follitropin alfa and lutropin alfa in routine clinical practice for assisted reproductive technology

BACKGROUND

Follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH) both have a role to play in follicular development during the natural menstrual cycle. LH supplementation during controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for assisted reproductive technology (ART) is used for patients with hypogonadotropic hypogonadism. However, the use of exogenous LH in COS in normogonadotropic women undergoing ART is the subject of debate. The aim of this study was to investigate characteristics of infertile women who received the 2:1 formulation of follitropin alfa and lutropin alfa (indicated for stimulation of follicular development in women with severe LH and FSH deficiency) in German clinical practice.

METHODS

A 3-year, multicentre, open-label, observational/non-interventional, post-marketing surveillance study of women (21-45 years) undergoing ART. Primary endpoint: reason for prescribing the 2:1 formulation of follitropin alfa and lutropin alfa. Secondary variables included: COS duration/dose; oocytes retrieved; fertilization; clinical pregnancy; ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS).

RESULTS

In total, 2220 cycles were assessed; at least one reason for prescribing the 2:1 formulation was given in 1834/2220 (82.6%) cycles. Most common reasons were: poor ovarian response (POR) (39.4%), low baseline LH (17.8%), and age (13.8%). COS: mean dose of the 2:1 formulation on first day, 183.1/91.5 IU; mean duration, 10.8 days. In 2173/2220 (97.9%) cycles, human chorionic gonadotrophin was administered. Oocyte pick-up (OPU) was attempted in 2108/2220 (95.0%) cycles; mean (standard deviation) 8.0 (5.4) oocytes retrieved/OPU cycle. Fertilization (≥1 oocyte fertilized) rates: in vitro fertilization (IVF), 391/439 (89.1%) cycles; intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI)/IVF + ICSI, 1524/1613 (94.5%) cycles. Clinical pregnancy rate: all cycles, 25.9%; embryo transfer cycles, 31.3%. OHSS: hospitalization for OHSS, 8 (0.36%) cycles, Grade 2, 60 (2.7%), and Grade 3, 1 (0.05%).

CONCLUSIONS

In German routine clinical practice, the most common reasons for using the 2:1 formulation of follitropin alfa and lutropin alfa for women undergoing ART were POR, low baseline LH, and age. Severe OHSS incidence was low and similar to that reported previously.

Gene expression profiles of cumulus cells obtained from women treated with recombinant human luteinizing hormone + recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone or highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin versus recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone alone

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate cumulus cell (CC) expression profile modulation after different stimulation protocols.

DESIGN

CCs transcriptome variations were evaluated by microarray in patients undergoing different treatments for ovarian stimulation, namely, r-hLH + r-hFSH and hp-hMG, compared with a control group treated with r-hFSH.

SETTING

Healthy patients undergoing assisted reproduction protocols.

PATIENT(S)

Sixteen healthy women with regular cycles and tubal disease or unexplained infertility.

INTERVENTION(S)

Four patients received hp-hMG, four received r-hFSH + r-hLH, and eight received r-hFSH daily. Aspiration of the oocytes was performed 36 hours after hCG administration. Only samples derived from cumulus-oocyte complexes containing mature oocytes showing polar body were processed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Comparison of genes differentially expressed in both treatment groups with the use of a hierarchic clustering analysis.

RESULT(S)

Data clustering analysis allowed detection of four clusters containing genes differentially expressed in both treatment groups compared with control. Functional analysis of the affected transcripts revealed genes involved in oocyte development and maturation.

CONCLUSION(S)

r-hLH and hCG, though acting on the same receptor, produce a differential activation of intracellular pathways. It can be hypothesized that this effect depends on their different structures and specific binding affinity for the receptor.

Efficacy of different gonadotropin combinations to support ovulation induction in WHO type I anovulation infertility: clinical evidences of human recombinant FSH/human recombinant LH in a 2:1 ratio and highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin stimulation protocols

BACKGROUND

The World Helath Organization (WHO) Group I anovulation, or hypogonadotropic hypogonadism (HH), is characterized by reduced hypothalamic/pituitary activity which results in abnormally low serum FSH and LH levels and negligible estrogen activity.

AIM

To compare the efficacy of human recombinant FSH (r-hFSH) plus human recombinant LH (r-hLH) in a 2:1 ratio with highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG-HP) urinary extract, containing LH-like activity, in women with HH.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

This two-arm randomized open-label study included 35 HH women (aged 25-36 yr) attending our Center. Eighteen patients received 150 IU hMG-HP (150 IU FSH + 150 IU LH-like activity) and seventeen received 150IU r-hFSH/75IU rhLH daily for a maximum of 16 days. Ovulation was induced by a single administration of hCG on the day after the last hMG-HP or r-hFSH/r-hLH.

RESULTS

The primary efficacy endpoint was ovulation induction as measured by follicle ≥17 mm, pre-ovulatory estradiol (E 2 ) ≥400 pmol/l and mid-luteal phase progesterone (P 4 ) ≥25 nmol/l. Secondary efficacy endpoints included E 2 levels/follicle at mid-cycle, number of follicles at mid-cycle and pregnancy rate (PR). Following a total of 70 cycles, 70% of r-hFSH/r-hLH treated patients met the primary endpoint vs 88% in hMG-HP group (p=0.11). However, PR in r-hFSH/r-hLH group was 55.6% compared to 23.3% in hMG-HP group (p=0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The primary endpoint achievement did not correlate with PR. This study has shown the superiority of LH compared to hCG in supporting FSH-induced follicular development in HH women.

Gonadotropin stimulation: past, present and future

Gonadotropin therapy is so central to infertility treatment that it is easy to overlook the considerable discovery and research that preceded production of the effective and safe products available today. The history underpinning this development spans over 300 years and provides a splendid example of how basic animal experimentation and technological advances have progressed to clinical application. Following the discovery of germ cells in 1677 and realizing, in 1870, that fertilization involved the merging of two cell nuclei, one from the egg and one from sperm, it took another 40 years to discover the interplay between hypothalamus, pituitary and gonads. The potential roles of gonadotropin regulation were discovered in 1927. Gonadotropin, such as pregnant mare serum gonadotropin (PMSG), was first introduced for ovarian stimulation in 1930. However, use of PMSG leads to antibody formation, and had to be withdrawn. Following withdrawal of PMSG, human pituitary gonadotropin (HPG) and urinary menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) appeared on the market, and 50 years ago the first child was delivered by our group in 1961 and opened the path to controlled ovarian stimulation. HPG produced good results, but its use came to an end in the late 1980s when it was linked to the development of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD). HMG preparations containing a high percentage of unknown urinary proteins, making quality control almost impossible, were then the only gonadotropins remaining on the market. With the availability of hMG, clomiphene citrate, ergot derivatives, GnRH agonists and antagonists, as well as metformin, algorithms were developed for their optimal utilization and were used for the next four decades. Following the first human IVF baby in 1978 and ICSI in 1991, such procedures became standard practice. The main agents for controlled ovarian stimulation for IVF were gonadotropins and GnRH analogues, with batch to batch consistent gonadotropic preparations; methods could be developed to predict and select the correct dose and the optimal protocol for each patient. We are now seeing the appearance of gonadotropin with sustained action and orally active GnRH analogues as well as orally active molecules capable to stimulate follicle growth and inducing ovulation. These new developments may one day remove the need for the classical gonadotropin in clinical work.