Trial reportHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2017
Efficacy and safety of follitropin alfa/lutropin alfa in ART: a randomized controlled trial in poor ovarian responders.
Trial report in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT02047227 (A Phase III, Randomized, Controlled, Single-blind, Multicentre, Parallel Arm Trial to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of Pergoveris®), which is not on this map. Cited by 55 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Phase III, Randomized, Controlled, Single-blind, Multicentre, Parallel Arm Trial to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of Pergoveris® (Follitropin Alfa and Lutropin Alfa) and GONAL-f® (Follitropin Alfa) for Multifollicular Development as Part of an Assisted Reproductive Technology Treatment Cycle in Poor Ovarian Responders, as Defined by the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology Criteria
Who cites it
55 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Luteinizing hormone activity in ovarian stimulation: comparative efficacy and safety of gonadotropinsFrontiers in endocrinology · 2026Pooled it
- Effectiveness of hormone add-on strategies in ovarian stimulation for women with poor ovarian response: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Pooled it
- Controlled ovarian stimulation protocols for assisted reproduction: a network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Recombinant human luteinizing hormone co-treatment in ovarian stimulation for assisted reproductive technology in women of advanced reproductive age: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2021Pooled it
- The role of recombinant LH in women with hypo-response to controlled ovarian stimulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2019Pooled it
- Evaluation of the effects of the Stop GnRH agonist with the letrozole protocol in poor ovarian responders: ABOTH randomized controlled trial.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2025Trial
- Another round, another chance: oocyte developmental competence and outcomes in second IVF attempts-the earlier, the better.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Observational
- Article
- Development and validation of a nomogram integrating endometrial ultrasound parameters to predict clinical pregnancy in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Non-Linear Association Between Serum Estradiol Decline and Clinical Outcomes in IVF/ICSI Cycles: A Retrospective Cohort Study.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Re-assessment of the therapeutic LH window in normogonadotropic IVF patients.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
- Luteinizing hormone supplementation and cumulative live birth rate in assisted reproductive technology cycles among women of advanced reproductive age.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- The role of luteinizing hormone in the management of female infertility: A French Delphi consensus.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Article
- Live birth in patients stimulated with r-hFSH or r-hFSH: r-hLH is strongly associated with cumulus cell derived gene expression models.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2025Observational
- Premature Ovarian Insufficiency and Diminished Ovarian Reserve: From Diagnosis to Current Management and Treatment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- The role of recombinant LH in ovarian stimulation: what's new?Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2025Review
- Targeting programmed cell death with natural products: a potential therapeutic strategy for diminished ovarian reserve and fertility preservation.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- The influence of the pharmaceutical industry on the development of gonadotrophins and ovarian stimulation protocols in assisted reproductive technologies.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Review
- Patients with low prognosis in ART: a Delphi consensus to identify potential clinical implications and measure the impact of POSEIDON criteria.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2024Article
- The effects of flexible short protocol with gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist on preventing premature ovulation in poor responders.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
study questionHow 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,
methodsWomen 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
findingsIn 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.