Trial reportReproduction & fertility2025
Clinical efficacy and safety of two highly purified human menopausal gonadotropins in women undergoing in vitro fertilization.
Trial report in Reproduction & fertility, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Abstract: This study compared the efficacy and safety of two highly purified (HP) human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) preparations, Gynogen HP and Menopur, in women undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for in vitro fertilization (IVF). A multicenter, randomized, active-controlled noninferiority comparative study was conducted between 2019 and 2021. Women aged 21-40 undergoing COS for their first or second IVF cycle, with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection, were randomized to receive either Gynogen HP or Menopur. The primary endpoint was to determine the total number of oocytes retrieved. Key secondary endpoints included total hMG dose, days of hMG stimulation, fertilization rate, implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate and safety. A total of 150 patients were randomized into two groups: 77 received Gynogen HP and 73 received Menopur COS. The primary endpoint, the number of oocytes retrieved (mean ± standard deviation (SD)), was similar between the Gynogen HP (6.3 ± 3.39) and Menopur (6.7 ± 4.52) groups. The least square (LS) mean values were 5.9 for the Gynogen HP and 6.3 for Menopur, with an LS mean difference of - 0.4 (95% CI: -1.83, 1.07; P = 0.6067), indicating that noninferiority as the lower limit of the 95% CI was above the non-inferiority threshold of -2.0. Secondary efficacy endpoints and safety analysis showed no significant differences between groups. Gynogen HP is noninferior and therapeutically equivalent to Menopur in terms of the number of oocytes retrieval, with a comparable safety profile. These results support the use of Gynogen HP for COS in women undergoing IVF as a part of assisted reproduction techniques. Lay summary: This study compared two fertility medications (Gynogen HP and Menopur) that are used to help women recruit eggs for IVF treatment. The researchers assessed if these medications are equally potent and safe. The study involved 150 women undergoing their first or second round of IVF between 2019 and 2021. Half of the women received Gynogen HP, while another half received Menopur. The main finding was that both medications worked similarly - women on Gynogen HP recruited an average of 6.3 eggs, while those on Menopur recruited an average of 6.7 eggs. This small difference was not meaningful from a medical perspective. Other important factors, such as pregnancy rates and safety concerns, were also similar between the two medications. Researchers concluded that Gynogen HP works just as well as Menopur for IVF treatment and is equally safe to use. This means doctors can confidently prescribe either medication for women undergoing IVF.
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.