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

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.

Keywords: ART; Bologna criteria; FSH; ICSI; IVF; LH; POR; follitropin alfa; lutropin alfa; poor ovarian response.

© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Patient disposition during the ESPART study. ESPART, Efficacy and Safety of Pergoveris in Assisted Reproductive Technology; r-hFSH, recombinant human FSH; r-hLH, recombinant human LH.

References

    1. Alviggi C, Andersen CY, Buehler K, Conforti A, De Placido G, Esteves SC, Fischer R, Galliano D, Polyzos NP, Sunkara SK et al. . A new more detailed stratification of low responders to ovarian stimulation: from a poor ovarian response to a low prognosis concept. Fertil Steril 2016;105:1452–1453.
    1. Banerjee P, Fazleabas AT. Endometrial responses to embryonic signals in the primate. Int J Dev Biol 2010;54:295–302.
    1. Banerjee P, Fazleabas AT. Extragonadal actions of chorionic gonadotropin. Rev Endocr Metab Disord 2011;12:323–332.
    1. Barrenetxea G, Agirregoikoa JA, Jimenez MR, de Larruzea AL, Ganzabal T, Carbonero K. Ovarian response and pregnancy outcome in poor-responder women: a randomized controlled trial on the effect of luteinizing hormone supplementation on in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril 2008;89:546–553.
    1. Bencomo E, Perez R, Arteaga MF, Acosta E, Pena O, Lopez L, Avila J, Palumbo A. Apoptosis of cultured granulosa-lutein cells is reduced by insulin-like growth factor I and may correlate with embryo fragmentation and pregnancy rate. Fertil Steril 2006;85:474–480.
    1. Bosch E, Labarta E, Crespo J, Simon C, Remohi J, Pellicer A. Impact of luteinizing hormone administration on gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist cycles: an age-adjusted analysis. Fertil Steril 2011;95:1031–1036.
    1. ESHRE ART fact sheet (July 2014). 2014. (15 October 2015, date last accessed).
    1. Ferraretti AP, Gianaroli L. The Bologna criteria for the definition of poor ovarian responders: is there a need for revision. Hum Reprod 2014;29:1842–1845.
    1. Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BC, Tarlatzis B, Nargund G, Gianaroli L. ESHRE consensus on the definition of ‘poor response’ to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod 2011;26:1616–1624.
    1. Hill MJ, Levens ED, Levy G, Ryan ME, Csokmay JM, DeCherney AH, Whitcomb BW. The use of recombinant luteinizing hormone in patients undergoing assisted reproductive techniques with advanced reproductive age: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2012;97:1108–1114.
    1. Hill MJ, Propst AM. The use of rLH, HMG and hCG in controlled ovarian stimulation for assisted reproductive technologies In: Darwish AMM (ed). Enhancing Success of Assisted Reproduction. Rijeka, Croatia: InTechOpen, 2012, 53–76.
    1. Hillier SG. Gonadotropic control of ovarian follicular growth and development. Mol Cell Endocrinol 2001;179:39–46.
    1. Humaidan P, Bungum M, Bungum L, Yding Andersen C. Effects of recombinant LH supplementation in women undergoing assisted reproduction with GnRH agonist down-regulation and stimulation with recombinant FSH: an opening study. Reprod Biomed Online 2004;8:635–643.
    1. Humaidan P, Schertz J, Fischer R. Efficacy and Safety of Pergoveris in Assisted Reproductive Technology--ESPART: rationale and design of a randomised controlled trial in poor ovarian responders undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment. BMJ Open 2015;5:e008297.
    1. Kocourkova J, Burcin B, Kucera T. Demographic relevancy of increased use of assisted reproduction in European countries. Reprod Health 2014;11:37.
    1. La Marca A, Grisendi V, Giulini S, Sighinolfi G, Tirelli A, Argento C, Re C, Tagliasacchi D, Marsella T, Sunkara SK. Live birth rates in the different combinations of the Bologna criteria poor ovarian responders: a validation study. J Assist Reprod Genet 2015;32:931–937.
    1. La Marca A, Sunkara SK. Individualization of controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF using ovarian reserve markers: from theory to practice. Hum Reprod Update 2014;20:124–140.
    1. Lee KS, Joo BS, Na YJ, Yoon MS, Choi OH, Kim WW. Cumulus cells apoptosis as an indicator to predict the quality of oocytes and the outcome of IVF-ET. J Assist Reprod Genet 2001;18:490–498.
    1. Lehert P, Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Schertz J, Saunders H, Arriagada P, Copt S, Tarlatzis B. Recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone (r-hFSH) plus recombinant luteinizing hormone versus r-hFSH alone for ovarian stimulation during assisted reproductive technology: systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2014;12:17.
    1. Marrs R, Meldrum D, Muasher S, Schoolcraft W, Werlin L, Kelly E. Randomized trial to compare the effect of recombinant human FSH (follitropin alfa) with or without recombinant human LH in women undergoing assisted reproduction treatment. Reprod Biomed Online 2004;8:175–182.
    1. Matorras R, Prieto B, Exposito A, Mendoza R, Crisol L, Herranz P, Burgues S. Mid-follicular LH supplementation in women aged 35-39 years undergoing ICSI cycles: a randomized controlled study. Reprod Biomed Online 2009;19:879–887.
    1. Merck GONAL-f 900 IU (66 mcg) pen. 2015. a. (30 March 2016, date last accessed).
    1. Merck SPC: Pergoveris 150 IU/75 IU powder and solvent for solution for injection. 2015. b. (1 June 2016, date last accessed).
    1. Nelson SM, Telfer EE, Anderson RA. The ageing ovary and uterus: new biological insights. Hum Reprod Update 2013;19:67–83.
    1. Oudendijk JF, Yarde F, Eijkemans MJ, Broekmans FJ, Broer SL. The poor responder in IVF: is the prognosis always poor?: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 2012;18:1–11.
    1. Papathanasiou A. Implementing the ESHRE ‘poor responder’ criteria in research studies: methodological implications. Hum Reprod 2014;29:1835–1838.
    1. Papathanasiou A, Searle BJ, King NM, Bhattacharya S. Trends in ‘poor responder’ research: lessons learned from RCTs in assisted conception. Hum Reprod Update 2016. doi: .
    1. Polyzos NP, Blockeel C, Verpoest W, De Vos M, Stoop D, Vloeberghs V, Camus M, Devroey P, Tournaye H. Live birth rates following natural cycle IVF in women with poor ovarian response according to the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod 2012;27:3481–3486.
    1. Polyzos NP, Devroey P. A systematic review of randomized trials for the treatment of poor ovarian responders: is there any light at the end of the tunnel. Fertil Steril 2011;96:1058–1061 e1057.
    1. Polyzos NP, Nwoye M, Corona R, Blockeel C, Stoop D, Haentjens P, Camus M, Tournaye H. Live birth rates in Bologna poor responders treated with ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI. Reprod Biomed Online 2014;28:469–474.
    1. Polyzos NP, Sunkara SK. Sub-optimal responders following controlled ovarian stimulation: an overlooked group. Hum Reprod 2015;30:2005–2008.
    1. Ruvolo G, Bosco L, Pane A, Morici G, Cittadini E, Roccheri MC. Lower apoptosis rate in human cumulus cells after administration of recombinant luteinizing hormone to women undergoing ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization procedures. Fertil Steril 2007;87:542–546.
    1. Tesarik J, Hazout A, Mendoza C. Luteinizing hormone affects uterine receptivity independently of ovarian function. Reprod Biomed Online 2003;7:59–64.
    1. The ESHRE Capri Workshop Group Europe the continent with the lowest fertility. Hum Reprod Update 2010;16:590–602.
    1. Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, de Mouzon J, Ishihara O, Mansour R, Nygren K, Sullivan E, van der Poel S. The International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) and the World Health Organization (WHO) Revised Glossary on ART Terminology, 2009. Hum Reprod 2009;24:2683–2687.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi