Follitropin beta 150units/0.5ml solution for injection vials

AbstractBackgroundFollitropin δ may be an alternative to conventional follitropin α/β for controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) within assisted reproductive treatment (ART), but its efficacy and safety remain unknown. We performed a random‐effects meta‐analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of follitropin δ and follitropin α/β.MethodsWe searched randomized controlled trials comparing follitropin δ and follitropin α/β using MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO‐ITCRP on December 14, 2022. The primary outcomes were the live birth rate and the incidence of moderate or severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation approach. The protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework.ResultsThree studies involving 2682 participants were included in our meta‐analysis. The results indicated that follitropin δ may result in little to no difference in live birth rates (risk ratio [RR], 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91–1.38; low certainty) and the incidence of moderate or severe OHSS (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.48–1.26; low certainty) compared with follitropin α/β.ConclusionFollitropin δ may result in little to no difference in COS compared with follitropin α/β, especially in terms of live births and safety.

Abstract licence: CC BY 4.0

BackgroundLive birth has increasingly been identified as the standard clinical approach to measure the success of medically assisted reproduction (MAR). However, previous analyses comparing biosimilar preparations of follitropin alfa versus the reference product (GONAL-f®, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany or GONAL-f® RFF; EMD Serono, Inc., Rockland, MA), have had insufficient power to detect differences in clinically meaningful outcomes such as live birth.MethodsMedline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and clinical trial registries were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and conference abstracts comparing biosimilar follitropin alfa versus the reference product in controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) cycles published before 31 October 2020. Only studies in humans and publications in English were included. Retrieved studies were screened independently by two authors based on titles and abstracts, and then by full text.Inclusion criteriaRCTs comparing follitropin alfa biosimilar preparations with the reference product in infertile patients of any age, with any type of infertility for any duration, undergoing COS for the purposes of MAR treatment (including frozen cycles). The primary outcome was live birth. Combined data for biosimilar preparations were analysed using a fixed-effects model.ResultsFrom 292 unique records identified, 17 studies were included in the systematic review, representing five unique RCTs that were included in the meta-analysis. Rates of live birth (RR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.71, 0.97; 4 RCTs, n = 1881, I2 = 0%), clinical pregnancy (RR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.72, 0.94; 4 RCTs, n = 2222, I2 = 0%) and ongoing pregnancy (RR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.68, 0.96; 4 RCTs, n = 1232, I2 = 0%) were significantly lower with biosimilar preparations versus the reference product. Rates of cumulative live birth and cumulative clinical pregnancy were also significantly lower with biosimilars versus the reference product. There was high risk of publication bias.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis included data from RCTs evaluating the efficacy and safety of the biosimilar follitropin alfa preparations and demonstrated lower probability of live birth and pregnancy (ongoing and clinical) in couples treated with biosimilar preparations compared with the reference product. This study provides more insight into the differences between biosimilar r-hFSH preparations and the reference product than previously reported.Trial registrationRegistration number: CRD42019121992 .

Abstract licence: CC BY

Study questionIs ovarian stimulation with follitropin delta in its individualised fixed-dose regimen at least as efficacious as follitropin alfa in a conventional dosing regimen in Asian population?Summary answerOvarian stimulation with individualised follitropin delta dosing resulted in a non-inferior ongoing pregnancy rate, a significantly higher live birth rate and a significantly lower incidence of early ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and/or preventive interventions compared to conventional follitropin alfa dosing.What is known alreadyPrevious randomised controlled trials conducted in Japan as well as in Europe, North- and South America have demonstrated that ovarian stimulation with the individualised follitropin delta dosing regimen based on serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) level and body weight modulated the ovarian response and reduced the risk of OHSS without compromising pregnancy and live birth rates.Study design, size, durationRandomised, controlled, multi-centre, assessor-blind trial conducted in 1009 Asian patients from mainland China, South Korea, Vietnam and Taiwan, undergoing their first IVF/ICSI cycle. Randomisation was stratified by age (Participants/materials, setting, methodsThe follitropin delta treatment consisted of a fixed daily dose individualised according to each patient's initial AMH level and body weight (AMH Main results and the role of chanceThe number of oocytes retrieved was significantly (P Limitations, reasons for cautionThe trial only covered the clinical outcome of one treatment cycle with fresh cleavage-stage embryo transfers.Wider implications of the findingsThe present trial shows that in addition to reducing the early OHSS risk, follitropin delta in its individualised fixed-dose regimen has the potential to improve the success rate in fresh cycles across all ages and with a lower gonadotropin consumption compared to conventional follitropin alfa dosing.Study funding/competing interest(s)This study was funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals. J.Q., Y.Z., X.L., T.H., H.-Y.H. and S.-H.K. have received institutional (not personal) clinical trial fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. M.G., B.M. and J.-C.A. are employees of Ferring Pharmaceuticals. J.-C.A. has pending and issued patent applications in the WO 2013/020996 and WO 2019/043143 patent families that comprise allowed and granted patent rights related to follitropin delta.Trial registration numberNCT03296527 (clinicaltrials.gov).Trial registration date28 September 2017.Date of first patient’s enrolment1 December 2017.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC

Unfounded skepticism relating to biosimilars, arising from the assertion that they are not molecularly identical to their original counterpart, fails to acknowledge that no biological medicine, including Gonal-f® (from Merck Serono) is identical to itself. Molecular differences between the biosimilar and the reference medicines are irrelevant and clinically undetectable as long as they are contained within the accepted variability for the original medicine. Accordingly, the minor differences in 'ongoing pregnancy rate' and 'live birth' rate reported in a recent meta-analysis of biosimilars of Gonal-f® from Chua et al. are probably driven by product-unrelated factors, notwithstanding the fact that of the four products under analysis, only Ovaleap® (from Theramex UK Ltd) and Bemfola® (from Gedeon Richter Plc) can unambiguously be considered to be biosimilars. The EU Biosimilars model has proven successful, but some healthcare professionals, building on highly arguable premises, voice a distrust in biosimilars. Only if such scientifically unfounded distrust is reverted, the full promise of rFSH alfa biosimilars for reproductive medicine patients is likely to be fulfilled.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-ND

Study questionHow does a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist versus a GnRH antagonist protocol affect ovarian response when using an individualized fixed daily dose of follitropin delta for ovarian stimulation?Summary answerThe BEYOND trial data demonstrate thatindividualized fixed-dose follitropin delta is effective when used in a GnRH agonist protocol, compared with a GnRH antagonist protocol, in women with anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) ≤35 pmol/l and no increased risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS).What is known alreadyThe efficacy and safety of an individualized fixed daily dose of follitropin delta (based on body weight and AMH) have been established in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using a GnRH antagonist protocol. Preliminary study data indicate that individualized follitropin delta is also efficacious in a GnRH agonist protocol (RAINBOW trial, NCT03564509). There are no prospective comparative data using individualized follitropin delta for ovarian stimulation in a GnRH agonist versus a GnRH antagonist protocol.Study design, size, durationThis is the first randomized, controlled, open-label, multi-centre trial exploring efficacy and safety of individualized follitropin delta dosing in a GnRH agonist versus a GnRH antagonist protocol in participants undergoing their first ovarian stimulation cycle for IVF/ICSI. A total of 437 participants were randomized centrally and stratified by centre and age. The primary endpoint was the number of oocytes retrieved. Secondary endpoints included ongoing pregnancy rates, adverse drug reactions (including OHSS), live births, and neonatal outcomes.Participants/materials, setting, methodsParticipants (18-40 years; AMH ≤35 pmol/l) were enrolled at specialist reproductive health clinics in Austria, Denmark, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland. The mean number of oocytes retrieved was compared between the GnRH agonist and antagonist protocols using a negative binomial regression model with age and AMH at screening as factors. Analyses were based on all randomized subjects, using a multiple imputation method for randomized subjects withdrawing before the start of stimulation.Main results and the role of chanceOf the 437 randomized subjects, 221 were randomized to the GnRH agonist, and 216 were randomized to the GnRH antagonist protocol. The participants had a mean age of 32.3 ± 4.3 years and a mean serum AMH of 16.6 ± 7.8 pmol/l. A total of 202 and 204 participants started ovarian stimulation with follitropin delta in the GnRH agonist and antagonist groups, respectively. The mean number of oocytes retrieved was statistically significantly higher in the agonist group (11.1 ± 5.9) versus the antagonist group (9.6 ± 5.5), with an estimated mean difference of 1.31 oocytes (95% CI: 0.22; 2.40, P = 0.0185). The difference in number of oocytes retrieved was influenced by the patients' age and ovarian reserve, with a greater difference observed in patients aged 15 pmol/l). Both the GnRH agonist and antagonist groups had a similar proportion of cycle cancellations (2.0% [4/202] versus 3.4% [7/204]) and fresh blastocyst transfer cancellations (13.4% [27/202] versus 14.7% [30/204]). The estimated ongoing pregnancy rate per started cycle was numerically higher in the GnRH agonist group (36.9% versus 29.1%; difference: 7.74% [95% CI: -1.49; 16.97, P = 0.1002]). The most commonly reported adverse events (≥1% in either group; headache, OHSS, nausea, pelvic pain, or discomfort and abdominal pain) were similar in both groups. The incidence of early moderate/severe OHSS was low (1.5% for the agonist group versus 2.5% for antagonist groups). Estimated live birth rates per started cycle were 35.8% and 28.7% in the GnRH agonist and antagonist groups, respectively (treatment difference 7.15%; 95% CI: -2.02; 16.31; P = 0.1265). The two treatment groups were comparable with respect to neonatal health data for singletons and twins and for incidence of congenital malformations (2.7% and 3.3% for the GnRH agonist versus antagonist groups, respectively).Limitations, reasons for cautionAll participants had AMH ≤35 pmol/l and were ≤40 years old. Clinicians should remain cautious when using a GnRH agonist protocol in patients with AMH >35 pmol/l (i.e. those with an increased OHSS risk). The incidence of OHSS in the GnRH antagonist group may have been lower if a GnRH agonist trigger had been allowed. Outcomes of transfers with cryopreserved blastocysts were not followed up, therefore the cumulative live birth rates and neonatal outcomes after cryotransfer are unknown.Wider implications of the findingsIn women with AMH ≤35 pmol/l, an individualized fixed daily dose of follitropin delta resulted in a significantly higher number of oocytes retrieved when used in a GnRH agonist protocol compared with a GnRH antagonist protocol, with no additional safety signals observed and no additional risk of OHSS. Live birth rates following ovarian stimulation with individualized follitropin delta were not statistically different between the GnRH protocols; however, the trial was not powered to assess this endpoint. There were no safety concerns with respect to neonatal health after ovarian stimulation with follitropin delta in either protocol.Study funding/competing interest(s)The trial was funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals. EE, EP, and MS have no competing interests. AP has received research support from Ferring, and Gedeon Richter, and honoraria or consultation fees from Preglem, Novo Nordisk, Ferring, Gedeon Richter, Cryos, Merck A/S. BC has received consulting fees from Ferring and Merck, and his department received fees from Ferring to cover the costs of patient enrolment. MBS has received support to attend meetings and/or travel from Ferring, and was a board member for FertiPROTEKT e.V. until 2023. JS has received honoraria or consultation fees from Ferring and Merck, and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Ferring, Merck, and GoodLife. TS has received support/travel expenses from Ferring for attending a congress meeting, and participated in an advisory board for Merck. YS has received grants/research support from Ferring and support to attend a professional society congress meeting from Merck. RL and PP are employees of Ferring Pharmaceuticals. PP is a BOD member of PharmaBiome and owns stocks of Takeda Pharmaceuticals.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03809429; EudraCT Number 2017-002783-40.Trial registration date7 April 2019.Date of first patient’s enrolment2 May 2019.

Abstract licence: CC BY