Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Biosimilars versus the originator of follitropin alfa for ovarian stimulation in ART: a systematic review and meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          STUDY QUESTION

          Is the probability of pregnancy different between women using biosimilars versus the originator of follitropin alfa for ovarian stimulation in ART?

          SUMMARY ANSWER

          Meta-analysis of eight randomized clinical trials (RCTs) suggests that live birth, clinical, and ongoing pregnancy rates are significantly lower with biosimilars of follitropin alfa compared to the originator.

          WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

          All biosimilars of follitropin alfa have received regulatory approval by demonstrating non-inferiority in the number of retrieved oocytes compared to the originator. Nevertheless, the most clinically relevant outcome in ART for both clinicians and patients is live birth. A meta-analysis published in 2021 suggested that biosimilars of follitropin alfa are associated with lower live birth rates compared to the originator. Since then, more relevant RCTs have been published, and thus an updated critical synthesis of the available evidence is urgently warranted.

          STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

          A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare biosimilars versus the originator of follitropin alfa in women undergoing ovarian stimulation for ART. A literature search was conducted until January 2024 in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, WHO, Clinicaltrials.gov, and others to identify eligible RCTs. The primary outcome was live birth. Secondary outcomes included clinical and ongoing pregnancy, duration of gonadotrophin administration and total FSH dose, number of oocytes retrieved, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS).

          PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

          Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Quality was assessed using the RoB-2 Tool by Cochrane, and a sensitivity analysis was performed by excluding studies having high risk of bias. Meta-analysis was performed using the random or fixed effects model depending on the presence or not of significant (>50%) statistical heterogeneity ( I 2). Results were combined using the intention-to-treat principle and are reported as risk ratio (RR) or weighted-mean-difference (WMD) with 95% CIs.

          MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

          Eight RCTs (n = 2987) (published between 2015 and 2023) were identified, assessing seven biosimilar products of follitropin alfa. The number of patients included in the eligible studies ranged from 100 to 1100. Three of the RCTs were deemed to be at high risk of bias. The duration of gonadotrophin administration was shorter in the biosimilars group (WMD: –0.19 days, 95% CI: –0.34 to –0.05; I 2 = 0%, 5 studies, n = 2081), while no difference was observed in the total dose of FSH (WMD: –34.69 IUs, 95% CI: –74.54 to 5.16; I 2 = 15.53%, 5 studies, n = 2081). No difference was observed in the number of oocytes retrieved (WMD: 0.27, 95% CI: –0.43 to 0.96; I 2 = 10.7%, 6 studies, n = 1527) and OHSS rates (RR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.90–1.52; I 2 = 0%, 8 studies, n = 2986) between the two groups. A significantly lower live birth rate was observed using the biosimilars of follitropin alfa compared to the originator in women undergoing ovarian stimulation for ART (RR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.72–0.96; I 2 = 0%, 6 studies, n = 2335; moderate certainty of evidence). Similarly, clinical pregnancy (RR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.73–0.92; I 2 = 0%, 7 studies, n = 2876; low certainty of evidence) and ongoing pregnancy rates (RR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.70–0.94; I 2 = 0%, 7 studies, n = 1886; low certainty of evidence) were lower in the biosimilars group. These results were not materially altered in the sensitivity analyses performed where studies deemed at high risk of bias were excluded.

          LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

          This meta-analysis included RCTs evaluating seven different biosimilars of follitropin alfa; however, pooled data appeared to be homogeneous. No data were available comparing biosimilars of follitropin alfa with the originator regarding cumulative live birth rate per aspiration or the probability of live birth in frozen thawed cycles. The population examined in the eligible RCTs includes mainly normal responders and no RCTs were identified focusing on poor or high responders.

          WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

          Clinicians should be informed that although biosimilars of follitropin alfa produce similar number of oocytes with the originator, pregnancy rates after a fresh transfer are likely to be lower. Future research should focus on optimizing the production and use of biosimilars of follitropin alfa, so that they lead to pregnancy rates comparable to the originator.

          STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

          No external funding was used for this study. K.I.K. and A.S. have no competing interest to disclose. E.M.K. reports personal fees and non-financial support from Merck, Ferring, IBSA, and Vianex. B.W.M. has been supported by an investigator grant from NHMRC, has received consulting fees from Organon, Merck, and Norgine, research support and non-financial support from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. B.W.M. also reports having stocks from OBsEva. C.A.V. reports grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, personal fees, and non-financial support from Merck, Sharpe and Dohme, personal fees and non-financial support from Organon, grants and non-financial support from Ferring, personal fees from IBSA, and personal fees and non-financial support from Gedeon Richter and Vianex.

          REGISTRATION NUMBER

          Protocol for the systematic review registered in The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42024498237).

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis is straightforward and considerably outperforms the standard DerSimonian-Laird method

              Background The DerSimonian and Laird approach (DL) is widely used for random effects meta-analysis, but this often results in inappropriate type I error rates. The method described by Hartung, Knapp, Sidik and Jonkman (HKSJ) is known to perform better when trials of similar size are combined. However evidence in realistic situations, where one trial might be much larger than the other trials, is lacking. We aimed to evaluate the relative performance of the DL and HKSJ methods when studies of different sizes are combined and to develop a simple method to convert DL results to HKSJ results. Methods We evaluated the performance of the HKSJ versus DL approach in simulated meta-analyses of 2–20 trials with varying sample sizes and between-study heterogeneity, and allowing trials to have various sizes, e.g. 25% of the trials being 10-times larger than the smaller trials. We also compared the number of “positive” (statistically significant at p   = 3 studies of interventions from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Results The simulations showed that the HKSJ method consistently resulted in more adequate error rates than the DL method. When the significance level was 5%, the HKSJ error rates at most doubled, whereas for DL they could be over 30%. DL, and, far less so, HKSJ had more inflated error rates when the combined studies had unequal sizes and between-study heterogeneity. The empirical data from 689 meta-analyses showed that 25.1% of the significant findings for the DL method were non-significant with the HKSJ method. DL results can be easily converted into HKSJ results. Conclusions Our simulations showed that the HKSJ method consistently results in more adequate error rates than the DL method, especially when the number of studies is small, and can easily be applied routinely in meta-analyses. Even with the HKSJ method, extra caution is needed when there are = <5 studies of very unequal sizes.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Hum Reprod
                Hum Reprod
                humrep
                Human Reproduction (Oxford, England)
                Oxford University Press
                0268-1161
                1460-2350
                February 2025
                24 December 2024
                24 December 2024
                : 40
                : 2
                : 343-359
                Affiliations
                Unit for Human Reproduction, 1st Dept of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Medical School, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki , Thessaloniki, Greece
                Fertility Associates , Auckland, New Zealand
                Unit for Human Reproduction, 1st Dept of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Medical School, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki , Thessaloniki, Greece
                Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Monash , Monash, Clayton, VIC, Australia
                Unit for Human Reproduction, 1st Dept of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Medical School, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki , Thessaloniki, Greece
                Centre for Big Data Research in Health, Faculty of Medicine & Health, University of New South Wales , Sydney, NSW, Australia
                Author notes
                Correspondence address. 1st Dept of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Papageorgiou General Hospital, Agiou Pavlou 76, 56429, Greece. E-mail: konie.kiose@ 123456gmail.com https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7546-4659
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7546-4659
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0031-9460
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9591-7222
                Article
                deae274
                10.1093/humrep/deae274
                11788201
                39719046
                0acdfed6-237e-412e-bc8c-b215907d3181
                © The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

                History
                : 22 May 2024
                : 13 November 2024
                : 2 December 2024
                Page count
                Pages: 17
                Funding
                Funded by: NHMRC, DOI 10.13039/501100000925;
                Funded by: Merck KGaA, DOI 10.13039/100009945;
                Funded by: Gedeon-Richter and Vianex;
                Categories
                Original Article
                Reproductive Endocrinology
                AcademicSubjects/MED00905

                Human biology
                biosimilars,r-hfsh,follitropin-alfa,ivf,icsi,live birth rate
                Human biology
                biosimilars, r-hfsh, follitropin-alfa, ivf, icsi, live birth rate

                Comments

                Comment on this article