Preview

Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproduction

Advanced search

An observational study «FOLLITROPIN» comparing the efficacy of follitropin alpha biosimilar: the real-world data

https://doi.org/10.17749/2313-7347/ob.gyn.rep.2021.212

Full Text:

Abstract

Introduction. The efficacy and safety of biosimilar follitropin alpha have been demonstrated in randomized blinded prospective clinical trials of phases I and III. Unfortunately, there is a gap between the clinical trials and real clinical practice data. The real-world patient data helps to create an evidence-based background for successful implementation of medicine at everyday practice in a nonselected population.
Aim: to investigate the efficacy of follitropin alpha biosimilar therapy (Primapur®) in nonselected real-world population.
Materials and Methods. A retrospective observational anonymized cohort study of follitropin alpha biosimilar (Primapur®) as a pre-filled pen injector with a dose adjustment of 5 IU, aimed to investigate its efficacy and safety in a nonselected population with indications to assisted reproductive technologies (ART) was carried out. The ovarian stimulation (OS) protocols included: monotherapy protocols with using only Primapur®; mixed protocols (recombinant and urinary-derived gonadotropins); short protocols with using antagonists of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) and long protocols with GnRH agonists. The stimulation protocols were analyzed with Primapur® application for at least 5 days.
Results. The overall clinical efficacy of ovarian stimulation cycles (N = 5484) was: oocytes retrieved - 9.5 ± 7.2, mature (MII) - 6.8 ± 6.6, fertilized (2PN) - 6.1 ± 5.8, clinical pregnancy per ET (PR) - 38.4 %. Mixed gonadotropin protocols (N = 2625) vs. monotherapy with Primapur® (N = 2859): oocytes retrieved - 8.6 ± 6.8 vs. 10.3 ± 7.4 (p < 0.001), mature (MII) - 6.7 ± 6.2 vs. 7.7 ± 6.9 (p < 0.001), fertilized (2PN) - 5.8 ± 5.2 vs. 7.2 ± 6.2 (p < 0.001). There were statistically significant differences between oocyte yields in mixed vs. monotherapy protocols due to subgroup differences, including age, body mass index (BMI) and IVF/ICSI attempts. No statistically significant differences were found for PR: 39.3 % vs. 37.6 % (p = 0.314). Monotherapy protocols with GnRH antagonist OS (N = 2183) vs. GnRH agonist (N = 676) revealed: oocytes retrieved - 10.5 ± 7.5 vs. 9.6 ± 7.0 (p = 0.032), mature (MII) - 7.6 ± 6.9 vs. 6.7 ± 5.7 (p < 0.001), fertilized (2PN) - 7.3 ± 6.3 vs. 5.7 ± 5.0 (p < 0.001). There were statistically significant differences between BMI and IVF/ICSI attempts. No statistically significant differences were found for PR: 37.9 % vs. 35.9 % (p = 0.482). All medicines were well tolerated and no serious adverse reactions were reported.
Conclusion. This was the largest retrospective observational study conducted in the field of fertility in Russia and involved 5484 ovarian stimulation protocols at 35 IVF clinics. The obtained results demonstrated similar clinical efficacy for follitropin alpha biosimilar Primapur® in different OS protocols in real clinical practice.

 

About the Authors

D. P. Kamilova
GC «Mother and Child»
Russian Federation

Dilorom P. Kamilova - MD, PhD, Chief Physician, Clinic «Mother and Child» Kuntsevo, Chief IVF Specialist of MD Medical Group.
Moscow.



M. M. Ovchinnikova
GC «Mother and Child»
Russian Federation

Maria M. Ovchinnikova - MD, Reproductologist, Head of the IVF Department, Lapino Clinical Hospital, MD Medical Group.
Moscow Region.



E. Sh. Ablyaeva
GC «Mother and Child»
Russian Federation

Elmira Sh. Ablyaeva - MD, PhD, Head of the Department of Reproductology, Clinic «Mother and Child» Khodynskoe Pole, MD Medical Group.
Moscow.



M. M. Leviashvili
GC «Mother and Child»
Russian Federation

Mziya M. Leviashvili - MD, PhD, Reproductologist, Clinic «Mother and Child» Khodynskoe Pole, MD Medical Group.
Moscow.



N. S. Stuleva
Sechenov University; Center of Reproductive Medicine and Genetics «Nova Clinic»
Russian Federation

Nadezhda S. Stuleva - MD, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Filatov Clinical Institute of Children's Health, Sechenov University; Obstetrician-Gynecologist, Center of Reproductive Medicine and Genetics «Nova Clinic».
2 bldg. 4, Bolshaya Pirogovskaya Str., Moscow 119991; 20 Lobachevsky Str., Moscow 119415.



E. V. Broitman
GC «Mother and Child»
Russian Federation

Evgeniya V. Broitman - MD, Head of the ART Department, Clinical Hospital «Avicenna», MD Medical Group.

Novosibirsk.



M. A. Ganikhina
GC «Mother and Child»
Russian Federation

Maria A. Ganikhina - MD, Reproductologist, Head of the IVF Department, Clinical Hospital «Mother and Child», MD Medical Group.
Tyumen.



E. N. Mayasina
Clinical Institute of Reproductive Medicine
Russian Federation

Elena N. Mayasina - MD, PhD, Vice Director General for Clinical Care, Reproductologist, Clinical Institute of Reproductive Medicine.
Ekaterinburg.



L. F. Iskhakova
GC «Mother and Child»
Russian Federation

Liliya F. Iskhakova - MD, Reproductologist, Clinical Hospital «Mother and Child», MD Medical Group.
Ufa.



K. Yu. Boyarskiy
«GENESIS» Reproduction Centre; Mechnikov North-Western State Medical University, Health Ministry of Russian Federation
Russian Federation

Konstantin Yu. Boyarskiy - MD, PhD, Head of the Department of Reproduction and Family Planning, «Genesis» Reproduction Centre; Associate Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Davydov Pediatric Faculty, Mechnikov North-Western State Medical University.
64 Kirochnaya Str., Saint Petersburg 191015; 41 Kirochnaya Str., Saint Petersburg 191015.



E. N. Ovsyannikova
GC «Mother and Child»
Russian Federation

Elena N. Ovsyannikova - MD, Reproductologist, Clinical Hospital «Mother and Child», MD Medical Group.
Samara.



Z. B. Barakhoeva
«AltraVita» Human Reproduction Clinic
Russian Federation

Zarema B. Barakoeva - MD, PhD, Reproductologist, «AltraVita» Human Reproduction Clinic.
Moscow.



S. V. Nikitin
GC «Mother and Child»
Russian Federation

Sergey V. Nikitin - MD, PhD, Head of the ART Department, Clinic «Mother and Child», MD Medical Group.
Saint Petersburg.



I. A. Bendusov
GC «Mother and Child»
Russian Federation

Ivan A. Bendusov - MD, Head of the ART Department, Clinic «Mother and Child» South-West, MD Medical Group.
Moscow.



Yu. A. Fetisova
GC «Mother and Child»
Russian Federation

Yulia A. Fetisova - MD, Reproductologist, IVF Department, Clinical Hospital (Perinatal Center on Sevastopolskiy), MD Medical Group.
Moscow.



M. A. Yudina
GC «Mother and Child»
Russian Federation

Marina A. Yudina - MD, PhD, Obstetrician-Gynecologist, Clinic «Mother and Child», MD Medical Group.
Nizhny Novgorod.



E. S. Tararashkina
GC «Mother and Child»
Russian Federation

Elena S. Tararashkina - MD, Reproductologist, IVF Department, Clinical Hospital (Perinatal Center on Sevastopolskiy), MD Medical Group.
Moscow.



D. T. Khetagurova
Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Health Ministry of Russian Federation
Russian Federation

Diana T. Khetagurova - MD, Postgraduate Student, Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University.
Moscow.



D. V. Blinov
MD Medical Group; Institute for Preventive and Social Medicine
Russian Federation

Dmitry V. Blinov - MD, PhD, MBA, Head of Medical and Scientific Affairs, Institute for Preventive and Social Medicine; Neurologist, Lapino Clinical Hospital, MD Medical Group.
Moscow Region; 4—10 Sadovaya-Triumfalnaya Str., Moscow 127006.
Scopus Author ID: 6701744871
Researcher ID: E-8906-2017
RSCI: 9779-8290



M. A. Polzikov
IVFarma LLC
Russian Federation

Mikhail A. Polzikov - PhD (Chemistry), Director General, IVFarma LLC.
Moscow.
Scopus Author ID: 10139451800



References

1. Pierce J.G., Parsons T.F. Glycoprotein hormones: structure and function. Annu Rev Biochem. 1981;50:465-95. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.bi.50.070181.002341.

2. McVeigh E., Homburg R., Guillebaud J. Ovulation induction. In: Oxford Handbook of Reproductive Medicine and Family Planning Oxford University Press, 2008. 173-90.

3. Donini P., Puzzuoli D., Montezemolo R. Purification of gonadotropin from human menopausal urine. Acta Endocrinol. 1964;45:321-28. https://doi.org/10.1530/acta.0.0450321.

4. Keene J.L., Matzuk M.M., Otani T. et al. Expression of biologically active human follitropin in Chinese hamster ovary cells. J Biol Chem.1989;264(9):4769-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9258(18)83656-0.

5. Recombinant Human FSH Product Development Group. Recombinant follicle stimulating hormone: development of the first biotechnology product for the treatment of infertility. Hum Reprod Update. 1998;4(6):862-81. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/4.6.862.

6. van Wely M., Kwan I., Burt A.L. et al. Recombinant versus urinary gonadotrophin for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(2):CD005354. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005354.pub2.

7. Dhont M. WHO-classification of anovulation: background, evidence, problems. International Congress Series. 2005;1279:3-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ics.2004.12.028.

8. van de Weijer B.H., Mulders J.W., Bos E.S. et al. Compositional analyses of a human menopausal gonadotrophin preparation extracted from urine (menotropin). Identification of some of its major impurities. Reprod Biomed Online. 2003;7(5):547-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1472-6483(10)62071-8.

9. Lispi M., Bassett R., Crisci C. et al. Comparative assessment of the consistency and quality of a highly purified FSH extracted from human urine (urofollitropin) and a recombinant human FSH (follitropin alpha). Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;13(2):179-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1472-6483(10)60613-x.

10. Olijve W., de Boer W., Mulders J.W., van Wezenbeek P.M. Molecular biology and biochemistry of human recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (Puregon). Mol Hum Reprod. 1996;2(5):371-82. https://doi.org/10.1093/molehr/2.5.371.

11. Goa K.L., Wagstaff A.J. Follitropin alpha in infertility: a review. BioDrugs. 1998;9(3):235-60. https://doi.org/10.2165/00063030-199809030-00006.

12. Orvieto R., Nahum R., Rabinson J. et al. Follitropin-alpha (Gonal-F) versus follitropin-beta (Puregon) in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization: is there any difference? Fertil Steril. 2009;91(4 Suppl):1522-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.08.112.

13. Howles C.M. Genetic engineering of human FSH (Gonal-F®). Hum Reprod Update. 1996;2(2):172-91. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/2.2.172.

14. Mulders J.W., Wijn H., Theunissen F. et al. Prediction of the in-vivo biological activity of human recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone using quantitative isoelectric focusing. Optimization of the model. Pharm Pharmacol Commun. 1999;5:51-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2042-7158.1999.tb00008.x.

15. Budani M.C., Fensore S., Di Marzio M., Tiboni G.M. Efficacy and safety of follitropin alpha biosimilars compared to their reference product: a Metaanalysis. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2020 Jul 11;1-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/09513590.2020.1792437. [Online ahead of print].

16. Vorobiev I.I., Semikhin A.S., Golovina E.O. The novel biosimilar of follitropin alpha to be manufactured in Russia starting from 2017. [Proizvodstvo novogo bioanalogovogo follitropina al'fa v Rossii - eto uzhe real'nost' v 2017 godu]. Akusherstvo, Ginekologia i Reprodukcia. 2017;11(3):116-26. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17749/2313-7347.2017.11.3.116-126.

17. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. Guideline on non-clinical and clinical development of similar biological medicinal products containing recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone (r-hFSH). EMA/597110/2012. European Medical Agency, 2013. 7 p. https://www.ema.europa.eu/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-non-clinical-clinical-development-similar-biological-medicinal-products-containing_en.pdf.

18. Podkorytov A.B., Zhilyaev O.V., Polzikov M.A. A pen injector for selfadministration of follitropin alpha solution with a minimal dose increment of 5 IU. [Shpric-ruchka dlya samostoyatel'nogo vvedeniya rastvora follitropina al'fa s minimal'nym shagom ustanavlivaemoj dozy 5 ME]. Akusherstvo, Ginekologia i Reprodukcia. 2017;11(4):35-42. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17749/2313-7347.2017.11.4.035-042.

19. Guidelines for the examination of medicines. Vol. IV. [Rukovodstvo po ekspertize lekarstvennyh sredstv. Tom IV]. Moscow: Polygraph-Polyus, 2014. 172 p. (In Russ.).

20. Vorob'ev I.I., Proskurina O.V., Khodak Yu.A. et al. Physicochemical properties, toxicity, and specific activity of a follitropin alpha biosimilar. Pharm Chem J. 2017;50(11):753-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11094-017-1525-3.

21. Orlova N., Kovnir S., Khodak Y. et al. High-level expression of biologically active human follicle stimulating hormone in the Chinese hamster ovary cell line by a pair of tricistronic and monocistronic vectors. PLoS One. 2019;14(7):e0219434. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219434.

22. Tyulkina E.E., Gordeev I.G., Grebenkin D.Yu. et al. Randomized crossover comparative study of safety, tolerance and pharmacokinetics of Primapur® vs. Gonal-f® upon single-dose subcutaneous administration in healthy volunteers. [Sravnitel'noe randomizirovannoe perekrestnoe issledovanie perenosimosti i farmakokinetiki preparatov Primapur® i Gonal-f® pri odnokratnom podkozhnom vvedenii zdorovym dobrovol'cam]. Eksperimental'naya i klinicheskaya farmakologiya. 2017;80(4):13-7. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.30906/0869-2092-2017-80-4-13-17.

23. Barakhoeva Z.B., Vovk L.A., Zorina I.V. et al. Major results of a phase III comparative multicenter study on the follitropin alfa biosimilar (Primapur®) and the original follitropin alfa (Gonal-f®). [Osnovnye rezul'taty sravnitel'nogo mnogocentrovogo issledovaniya III fazy bioanalogovogo follitropina al'fa (Primapur®) i original'nogo follitropina al'fa (Gonal-f®)]. Akusherstvo, Ginekologia i Reprodukcia. 2018;12(3):5-16. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17749/2313-7347.2018.12.3.005-016.

24. Barakhoeva Z., Vovk L., Fetisova Y. et al. A multicenter, randomized, phase III study comparing the efficacy and safety of follitropin alpha biosimilar and the original follitropin alpha. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019;241:6-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.07.032.

25. Zhuravleva N.I., Shubina L.C., Sukhorukikh O.A. The use of the level of evidence and grade of recommendations scales in developing clinical guidelines in the Russian Federation. [Obzor metodik ocenki dostovernosti nauchnyh dokazatel'stv i ubeditel'nosti rekomendacij, primenyaemyh pri razrabotke klinicheskih rekomendacij v Rossijskoj Federacii]. FARMAKOEKONOMIKA. Modern Pharmacoeconomic and Pharmacoepidemiology. 2019;12(1):34-41. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17749/2070-4909.2019.12.1.34-41.

26. Buzuverova O.O., Fedyaeva V.K., Sukhorukikh O.A. Developing clinical guidelines and assessing the quality of medical care using the RAND/ UCLA method. [Metodologicheskie i prakticheskie aspekty primeneniya metoda RAND/UCLA dlya razrabotki klinicheskih rekomendacij i kriteriev ocenki kachestva medicinskoj pomoshchi]. FARMAKOEKONOMIKA. Modern Pharmacoeconomic and Pharmacoepidemiology. 2019;12(4):327-32. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17749/2070-4909.2019.12.4.327-332.

27. Blinov D.V., Akarachkova E.S., Orlova A.S. et al. New framework for the development of clinical guidelines in Russia. [Novaya koncepciya razrabotki klinicheskih rekomendacij v Rossii]. FARMAKOEKONOMIKA. Modern Pharmacoeconomic and Pharmacoepidemiology. 2019;12(2):125-44. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17749/2070-4909.2019.12.2.125-144.

28. Omelyanovskiy V.V., Maksimkina E.A., Ivakhnenko O.I. et al. Improvements to the formation of lists of drugs for medical use: analysis of changes in the Government Decree No. 871. [Sovershenstvovanie sistemy formirovaniya perechnej lekarstvennyh preparatov dlya medicinskogo primeneniya: analiz izmenenij Postanovleniya Pravitel'stva RF №871]. FARMAKOEKONOMIKA. Modern Pharmacoeconomic and Pharmacoepidemiology. 2020;13(2):113-23. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17749/2070-4909/farmakoekonomika.2020.032.

29. Omelyanovsky V.V., Fedyaeva V.K., Musina N.Z. The concept of multicriteria analysis of decision-making in the current system of health technology assessment in Russia. [Koncepciya mnogokriterial'nogo analiza prinyatiya reshenij v tekushchej sisteme ocenki tekhnologij v zdravoohranenii Rossii]. FARMAKOEKONOMIKA. Modern Pharmacoeconomic and Pharmacoepidemiology. 2018;11(3):3-7. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17749/2070-4909.2018.11.3-003-007.

30. Alviggi C., Clarizia R., Mollo A. et al. Who needs LH in ovarian stimulation? Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;22(Suppl 1):S33-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1472-6483(11)60007-2.

31. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology; American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Assisted reproductive technology in the United States: 2001 results generated from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology registry. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(6):1253-66. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.11.056.

32. Al-Inany H.G., Youssef M.A., Ayeleke R.O. et al. Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;4:CD001750. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001750.pub4.

33. Lensen S.F., Wilkinson J., Leijdekkers J.A. et al. Individualised gonadotropin dose selection using markers of ovarian reserve for women undergoing in vitro fertilisation plus intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ ICSI). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;2(2):CD012693. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012693.pub2.

34. Xiao J.S., Su C.M., Zeng X.T. Comparisons of GnRH antagonist versus GnRH agonist protocol in supposed normal ovarian responders undergoing IVF: a systematicreview and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;12;9(9):e106854. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175985.

35. Polzikov M.A., Blinov D.V., Ushakova T.I. et al. Do high levels of folic acid in women's blood impact the outcome of IVF? [Vliyaet li vysokij uroven' folievoj kisloty v krovi zhenshchin na effektivnost' programm EKO?]. Akusherstvo, Ginekologia iReprodukcia. 2019;13(4):313-25. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17749/2313-7347.2019.13.4.313-325.

36. Polzikov M., Blinov D., Ushakova T. et al. Does higher level of serum folate before ovarian stimulation worsen outcomes of assisted reproductive technologies in normogonadotropic women? In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Hum Reprod. 2020;35(Suppl 1):i1—i513. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/35.Supplement_1.1.


For citation:


Kamilova D.P., Ovchinnikova M.M., Ablyaeva E.S., Leviashvili M.M., Stuleva N.S., Broitman E.V., Ganikhina M.A., Mayasina E.N., Iskhakova L.F., Boyarskiy K.Yu., Ovsyannikova E.N., Barakhoeva Z.B., Nikitin S.V., Bendusov I.A., Fetisova Yu.A., Yudina M.A., Tararashkina E.S., Khetagurova D.T., Blinov D.V., Polzikov M.A. An observational study «FOLLITROPIN» comparing the efficacy of follitropin alpha biosimilar: the real-world data. Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproduction. 2021;15(1):5-21. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17749/2313-7347/ob.gyn.rep.2021.212

Views: 386


ISSN 2313-7347 (Print)
ISSN 2500-3194 (Online)