Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28137754›Full record

Trial reportHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2017

Efficacy and safety of follitropin alfa/lutropin alfa in ART: a randomized controlled trial in poor ovarian responders.

P Humaidan, W Chin, D Rogoff, T D'Hooghe, S Longobardi, J Hubbard, J Schertz, ESPART Study Investigators‡

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT02047227 phase3completednot on this map

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

TypeinterventionalSponsorMerck KGaA, Darmstadt, GermanyRan2014 to 2015Enrolled939ConditionsInfertilityArmsPergoveris®, GONAL-f®, Recombinant human chorionic gonadotrophin (r-hCG)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

55 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Review
  16. The role of recombinant LH in ovarian stimulation: what's new?Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2025
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

P HumaidanThe Fertility Clinic, Skive Regional Hospital, Skive, Denmark.
W ChinGlobal Biostatistics and Epidemiology, EMD Serono, Billerica, MA, USA, a business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.
D RogoffGlobal Clinical Development, EMD Serono Research and Development Institute, Billerica, MA, USA, a business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.
T D'HoogheGlobal Medical Affairs Fertility, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.
S LongobardiGlobal Medical Affairs Fertility, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.
J HubbardGlobal Clinical Development, EMD Serono Research and Development Institute, Billerica, MA, USA, a business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.
J SchertzGlobal Clinical Development, EMD Serono Research and Development Institute, Billerica, MA, USA, a business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.
ESPART Study Investigators‡

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AdultBirth RateFemaleFollicle Stimulating Hormone, HumanHumansOvaryOvulation InductionPregnancyPregnancy OutcomePregnancy RateRecombinant ProteinsReproductive Techniques, AssistedSingle-Blind MethodTreatment OutcomeFollicle Stimulating Hormone, Humanfollitropin alfaRecombinant ProteinsARTBologna criteriafollitropin alfaFSHICSIIVFLHlutropin alfapoor ovarian responsePOR

Identifiers

PMID28137754
PMCPMC5850777

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.