Safety of Ovaleap® (Follitropin Alfa) in Infertile Women Undergoing Superovulation for Assisted Reproductive Technologies: A Multinational Comparative, Prospective Cohort Study.

Background: Ovaleap® (follitropin alfa), a recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone, is a biosimilar medicinal product to Gonal-f® and is used for ovarian stimulation. The main objective of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of Ovaleap® compared to Gonal-f® in one treatment cycle in routine clinical practice. Methods: Safety of Ovaleap® Follitropin alfa in Infertile women undergoing superovulation for Assisted reproductive technologies (SOFIA) was a prospective cohort study conducted in six European countries. Eligible patients were infertile women undergoing superovulation for assisted reproductive technology, who were administered Ovaleap® or Gonal-f® for ovarian stimulation and were naïve to follicle stimulating hormone treatment. The recruitment ratio was 1:1. The primary endpoint was incidence proportion of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and the secondary endpoint was OHSS severity (Grades I, II, III). The effect of risk factors or potential confounders on the odds ratio for OHSS incidence as well as treatment effect on OHSS incidence was explored using univariate logistic regression. Pregnancy and live birth rates were also assessed. Results: A total of 408 women who were administered Ovaleap® and 409 women who were administered Gonal-f® were eligible for analysis. The incidence proportion of OHSS was 5.1% (95% CI: 3.4, 7.7) in the Ovaleap® cohort and 3.2% (95% CI: 1.9, 5.4) in the Gonal-f® cohort. This difference in OHSS incidence proportion between the two cohorts was not statistically significant neither before (p = 0.159) nor after univariate adjustment for each potential confounder (p > 0.05). The incidence proportion of OHSS severity grades was similar in the two treatment groups (3.4% versus 2.0% for Grade I, 1.2% versus 1.0% for Grade II, and 0.5% versus 0.2% for Grade III, in the Ovaleap® and Gonal-f® cohorts, respectively), without a significant statistical difference (p = 0.865, for each grade). Among patients who had embryo transfer, clinical pregnancy rates were 33% and 31% and live birth rates were 27% and 26%, in the two cohorts, respectively. Conclusions: Findings from the SOFIA study indicate that the incidence proportions of OHSS and OHSS severity, as well as pregnancy and live birth rates, are similar between Ovaleap® and Gonal-f® treatments and corroborate the safety and effectiveness of Ovaleap® as a biosimilar to Gonal-f®.

Fertility preservation from the point of view of hematopoietic cell transplant specialists-a worldwide-web-based survey analysis.

With the increase in cancer survival, men and women have a chance to conceive children post-recovery. This study aims to better understand hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) specialist practices and opinions related to fertility preservation for hematological malignancy patients. Survey requests were emailed to 586 European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) members. Respondents completed the mostly multiple-choice questionnaire on the IVF-Worldwide.com website. Results were reported as a percentage of respondents. Responses were submitted by 150 HCT specialists from 41 (of 195) countries worldwide. The survey showed that most HCT specialists (87%) are aware of and inform patients that chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and transplantation could harm fertility. Specialists referred 56% of their male patients to fertility preservation but only 36% of their female patients; many pre-pubertal or near post-menopausal patients were not referred. This indicates that barriers may be preventing specialists from referring patients for fertility preservation. Many HCT specialists do not know about or use international fertility preservation recommendations, indicating that new protocols for enhancing awareness are needed. Establishing a referral process protocol to reproductive specialists should be considered. When non-urgent treatment can be deferred for 10-20 days, patients can have a sufficient window to undergo certain fertility preservation procedures.

Oncofertility: insights from IVF specialists-a worldwide web-based survey analysis.

PURPOSE: This research sought to understand IVF-physicians' knowledge of, experience with, and attitudes toward fertility preservation for cancer patients. METHODS: A 35-question, self-report survey request was emailed to IVF providers who were registered on the IVF-Worldwide.com network (3826 clinics). Physicians submitted responses on the IVF-Worldwide.com website. Survey results were reported as a proportion of the responding clinics. RESULTS: Survey responses were completed by 321 (8.4%) globally distributed IVF clinics, representing 299,800 IVF cycles. Of these clinics, 86.6% (278) performed fertility preservation, treating approximately 6300 patients annually. However, 18.4% of the centers reported that patients sought advice independently, without an oncologist's referral. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation was performed by 37.7% of the clinics, yet 52.6% considered the procedure experimental. IVM was performed by 16.5% of responding clinics. A majority (63.6%) of the clinics selected treatment protocols based on each patient's malignancy. Most respondents (76.3%) disagreed that fertility preservation was not yet successful enough to make it an available option. However, 44.2% believed that pregnancy rates following oocyte cryopreservation could not be determined because not enough oocyte cryopreservation patients had completed embryo transfer. CONCLUSIONS: Most clinics performed fertility preservation, tailoring protocols to each patient's disease and condition. Almost 20% of patients sought advice independently, indicating that more effort is needed to encourage oncologists to refer patients. Most survey respondents believed that data was not yet available on either live birth outcomes or the best protocol for each disease. Therefore, long-term study must continue, with the establishment of interim milestones and an outcome-tracking registry.

Beliefs, attitudes and funding of assisted reproductive technology: Public perception of over 6,000 respondents from 6 European countries.

BACKGROUND: Fertility rates in Europe are among the lowest in the world, which may be attributed to both biological and lifestyle factors. Cost and reimbursement of fertility treatments vary across Europe, although its citizens enjoy wide access to fertility care. Since few regional studies evaluating public support for fertility treatment exist, we conducted the Listening IVF and Fertility in Europe (LIFE) survey to ascertain public perception of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and gamete donation as a treatment for infertility among European men and women. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This survey was distributed via an online questionnaire to 8,682 individuals who were voluntary participants in an online research panel residing in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, or the UK. The survey covered items to determine respondents' beliefs regarding IVF and its success, the need for public funding, the use of IVF among modern families with different lifestyles, and the support for gamete donation. Results were analyzed by age, country of origin, sex, and sexual orientation. A total of 6,110 (70% of total) men and women responded. Among all respondents, 10% had undergone IVF treatment and 48% had considered or would consider IVF in case of infertility. Respondents estimated IVF mean success rate to be 47% and over half of respondents believed that availability of IVF would encourage people to delay conception. Although 93% of respondents believed that IVF treatment should be publicly funded to some extent, a majority believed that secondary infertility or use of fertility treatments allowing to delay parenthood should be financed privately. Survey respondents believed that the mean number of stimulated IVF cycles funded publicly should be limited 2 to 3 (average 2.4). 79% of respondents were willing to pay for IVF if needed with a mean amount of 5,400 € for a child brought to life through IVF. According to respondents, mean minimum and maximum ages for IVF should be 29 and 42 years old, respectively. The current survey showed support for egg and sperm donation (78%), for IVF in single women (61%) and for same-sex female couples (64%). When analyzing the results per group (i.e., sex, age, sexual orientation, and countries), youngest age groups, homosexuals, bisexuals, German respondents, and men had similar overall positive attitudes and beliefs toward IVF and opinions on public funding. Perceived limits to availability were stronger in women. CONCLUSION: Overall, the survey results demonstrate a positive attitude among respondents in an online panel toward IVF, gamete donation, and support for public funding for fertility treatment. These findings could potentially drive discussions between patients and prescribers to explore IVF treatment and among legislators and payers to support public funding for these procedures.

Analysis of patient and nurse preferences for self-administered FSH injection devices in select European markets.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess product-specific features for a variety of self-administered injection devices and identify key factors that patients and nurses in select European markets find most important when selecting injection devices for self-administration of recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone and urinary human follicle-stimulating hormone for fertility/reproductive therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (N=402) in France, Italy, Spain, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, and Belgium, as well as reproductive/fertility nurses (N=40) in Germany, Italy, France, Spain, and the Czech Republic were surveyed. All patients were previously prescribed a follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) treatment for either in vitro fertilization or ovulation induction. Patient and nurse preferences for attributes across all injection devices in the market were obtained via an online questionnaire and evaluated using the maximum differential scaling (MaxDiff) and conjoint analyses, which captured the relative importance of the selected FSH injection device attributes to determine specific qualities in overall product preference. RESULTS: Both the MaxDiff and conjoint analyses indicated that, for patients and nurses, the ideal FSH injection device would be a highly accurate, multi-use reusable pen injector with a dial-back function that would be easy for both use and education/instruction. Patients and nurses each selected attributes pertinent to their own experiences with the FSH injection device. Categorically, patients valued factors that resulted in minimal impact on daily life, including reduced injection volume to minimize injection-site pain, as well as a reusable device that would be easy to use; nurses placed greater value on a device that would be easy to teach in order to instruct the greatest number of patients while minimizing risk. CONCLUSION: Patient and nurse preferences were aligned on certain selected attributes of the FSH products. Although this study was an unbranded examination of attributes across all injection devices currently in the market, results demonstrated that the preferred product attributes were all characteristics of the Ovaleap® Pen.