Follitropin alfa 150unit / Lutropin alfa 75unit powder and solvent for solution for injection vials

Abstract STUDY QUESTION How does the efficacy and safety of a fixed-ratio combination of recombinant human FSH plus recombinant human LH (follitropin alfa plus lutropin alfa; r-hFSH/r-hLH) compare with that of r-hFSH monotherapy for controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) in patients with poor ovarian response (POR)? SUMMARY ANSWER The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were comparable between treatment groups and the safety profile of both treatment regimens was favourable. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Although meta-analyses of clinical trials have suggested some beneficial effect on reproductive outcomes with r-hLH supplementation in patients with POR, the definitions of POR were heterogeneous and limit the comparability across studies. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Phase III, single-blind, active-comparator, randomized, parallel-group clinical trial. Patients were followed for a single ART cycle. A total of 939 women were randomized (1:1) to receive either r-hFSH/r-hLH or r-hFSH. Randomization, stratified by study site and participant age, was conducted via an interactive voice response system. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Women classified as having POR, based on criteria incorporating the ESHRE Bologna criteria, were down-regulated with a long GnRH agonist protocol and following successful down-regulation were randomized (1:1) to COS with r-hFSH/r-hLH or r-hFSH alone. The primary efficacy endpoint was the number of oocytes retrieved following COS. Safety endpoints included the incidence of adverse events, including ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Post hoc analyses investigated safety outcomes and correlations between live birth and baseline characteristics (age and number of oocytes retrieved in previous ART treatment cycles or serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH)). The significance of the treatment effect was tested by generalized linear models (Poisson regression for counts and logistic regression for binary endpoints) adjusting for age and country. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Of 949 subjects achieving down-regulation, 939 were randomized to r-hFSH/r-hLH (n = 477) or r-hFSH (n = 462) and received treatment. Efficacy assessment: In the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, the mean (SD) number of oocytes retrieved (primary endpoint) was 3.3 (2.71) in the r-hFSH/r-hLH group compared with 3.6 (2.82) in the r-hFSH group (between-group difference not statistically significant). The observed difference between treatment groups (r-hFSH/r-hLH and r-hFSH, respectively) for efficacy outcomes decreased over the course of pregnancy (biochemical pregnancy rate: 17.3% versus 23.9%; clinical pregnancy rate: 14.1% versus 16.8%; ongoing pregnancy rate: 11.0% versus 12.4%; and live birth rate: 10.6% versus 11.7%). An interaction (identified post hoc) between baseline characteristics related to POR and treatment effect was noted for live birth, with r-hFSH/r-hLH associated with a higher live birth rate for patients with moderate or severe POR, whereas r-hFSH was associated with a higher live birth rate for those with mild POR. A post hoc logistic regression analysis indicated that the incidence of total pregnancy outcome failure was lower in the r-hFSH/r-hLH group (6.7%) compared with the r-hFSH group (12.4%) with an odds ratio of 0.52 (95% CI 0.33, 0.82; P = 0.005). Safety assessment: The overall proportion of patients with treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurring during or after r-hFSH/r-hLH or r-hFSH use (stimulation or post-stimulation phase) was 19.9% and 26.8%, respectively. There was no consistent pattern of TEAEs associated with either treatment. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Despite using inclusion criteria for POR incorporating the ESHRE Bologna criteria, further investigation is needed to determine the impact of the heterogeneity of POR in the Bologna patient population. The observed correlation between baseline clinical characteristics related to POR and live birth rate, as well as the observed differences between groups regarding total pregnancy outcome failure were from post hoc analyses, and the study was not powered for these endpoints. In addition, the attrition rate for pregnancy outcomes in this trial may not reflect general medical practice. Furthermore, as the patient population was predominantly White these results might not be applicable to other ethnicities. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS In the population of women with POR investigated in this study, although the number of oocytes retrieved was similar following stimulation with either a fixed-ratio combination of r-hFSH/r-hLH or r-hFSH monotherapy, post hoc analyses showed that there was a lower rate of total pregnancy outcome failure in patients receiving r-hFSH/r-hLH, in addition to a higher live birth rate in patients with moderate and severe POR. These findings are clinically relevant and require additional investigation. The benefit:risk balance of treatment with either r-hFSH/r-hLH or r-hFSH remains positive. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This study was funded by Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. P.H. has received honoraria for lectures and unrestricted research grants from Ferring, Merck KGaA and MSD. D.R. is a former employee of EMD Serono, a business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. J.S., J.H. and W.C. are employees of EMD Serono Research and Development Institute, a business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. T.D.’H. and S.L. are employees of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02047227; EudraCT Number: 2013-003817-16. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE ClinicalTrials.gov: 24 January 2014; EudraCT: 19 December 2013. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT 30 January 2014.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC 4.0

Abstract STUDY QUESTION How do ovarian responses using conventional dosing for follitropin delta 15 µg/day compare with follitropin alfa 225 IU/day in women undergoing ovarian stimulation? SUMMARY ANSWER The ADAPT-1 trial demonstrates similar ovarian responses with follitropin delta 15 µg/day and follitropin alfa 225 IU/day starting doses in a conventional dosing regimen. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Follitropin delta, a recombinant FSH (rFSH), is currently approved for ovarian stimulation using an individualized fixed daily dose based on serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) and bodyweight (maximum 12 µg/day for first cycle and 24 µg/day in subsequent cycles). Other rFSHs, such as follitropin alfa, conventionally apply a starting dose of 150–225 IU, fixed for the initial days of stimulation, after which dose adjustments can be made (maximum 450 IU/day). Ovarian stimulation with follitropin delta 10 µg/day provides a similar ovarian response to follitropin alfa 150 IU/day for serum concentration and number of follicles ≥12 mm. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION ADAPT-1 was a randomized, accessor-blinded, multicentre trial comparing efficacy and safety of a starting dose of follitropin delta 15 µg/day with follitropin alfa 225 IU/day in conventional dosing regimens. The primary endpoint was the number of oocytes retrieved; mean difference between treatment groups was estimated using a negative binomial regression model (treatment and serum AMH level as factors). During the follow-up period, clinical pregnancies resulting from the first fresh/frozen transfers within 3 months of the start of stimulation, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) rates were assessed. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Participants, 18–40 years, undergoing IVF/ICSI could enrol at specialist reproductive clinics in Austria, France, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom for ovarian stimulation if they had no contraindications for treatment with a starting gonadotropin dose of 225 IU/day. Patients could enrol if they reported infertility for at least 1 year if ≤37 years and at least 6 months for those >37 years, and regular menstrual cycles (21–35 days). All cycles used a GnRH antagonist protocol. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Between 1 August 2022 and 16 April 2024, 300 of 337 screened patients were randomized to, and received, follitropin delta (n = 200) or follitropin alfa (n = 100). The two treatment groups were comparable in terms of demographics, baseline characteristics, and duration of infertility. The mean duration of treatment was ∼9 days in both groups. The mean total dose of follitropin delta was 143.7 ± 33.6 µg and 154.3 ± 23.1 µg (2105 ± 315 IU) for follitropin alfa. Three-quarters (226/300) used an human Chorionic Gonadotropin trigger for final follicular maturation. A mean of 9.9 oocytes was retrieved for both groups (estimated difference: 0.0 oocytes; 95% CI −1.3, 1.2). The category of 8–14 oocytes retrieved was the most common ovarian response (follitropin delta: 45.5%; follitropin alfa: 50.0%). Clinical pregnancy rates were comparable (31.6% and 31.0%; estimated difference 0.6 (95% CI −10.6, 11.8)). Early OHSS (≤9 days after triggering) occurred in 2.5% and 3.0%, and all cases were Grade 3 (moderate) or lower. No participant had the stimulation cycle cancelled due to excessive ovarian response. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Only pregnancies from the first fresh or cryopreserved transfer within 3 months of oocyte retrieval were recorded. Cumulative pregnancy rates after the first transfer were not followed up. All analyses are of descriptive nature and no formal hypothesis testing or multiplicity adjustment was applied. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Treatment groups had similar ovarian responses, supporting equivalence for starting doses follitropin delta 15 µg and follitropin alfa 225 IU, with low rates of early OHSS. Ovarian stimulation cycles with follitropin delta in µg can be planned and adjusted, leveraging the established IU dose equivalence to follitropin alfa. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This trial was funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals A/S, Kastrup, Denmark. Medical writing support for manuscript development was provided by Celia J. Parkyn, PhD, and was funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals A/S, Kastrup, Denmark. P.Z. and R.A. have none. A.B. has received grants from Gedeon Richter, IBSA, GP Pharm & Seid, Miguel Hernandez University, Centre for Technological Development and Innovation, Valencian Innovation Agency, Regional Secretary for Industry, Trade and Consumption, and the Government Ministry of Industry and Tourism; payments from University Complutense of Madrid, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Fentypharm, Miguel Hernandez University, Gedeon Richter, & Vall d’Hebron Hospital; travel support from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Fentypharm, Gedeon Richter, International ESHRE Congress Organising Committee, Spanish Society of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, CROG Congress Organising Committee, & Vall d’Hebron Hospital; has a patent pending for Sperm plate (U202431456); and is Chair of the Organising Committee of the Infertility and Sterility Section of the Spanish Society of Gynaecologist (non-paid role) and equipment from Obstetrics; & equipment from Cook Medical. J.S. has received consulting fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. E.P. has received grants from Merck, Ferring, Theramex, Gedeon Richter, IBSA, and Organon; payments from Merck, Ferring, IBSA, and Organon; travel support from Merck, IBSA, Organon, Theramex, and Ferring; and participated in a Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Merck. M.G.S. has received patient medication from Ferring; payments from Ferring, Merck for educational events; and travel support from Ferring, Merck, Theramex, and IBSA. R.L. and S.M. are employees of Ferring Pharmaceuticals. I.E.J. was an employee of Ferring Pharmaceuticals at the time of the trial conduct. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER clinicaltrials.gov NCT05263388; Eudract 2021-001785-38 TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE 16 November 2021 (clinicaltrials.gov); 5 August 2021 (Eudract) DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT 1 August 2022

Abstract licence: CC BY