比较生物仿制药与原研促性腺激素α的疗效和安全性的最新荟萃分析。

IF 1.6 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Minerva obstetrics and gynecology Pub Date : 2024-02-01 Epub Date: 2022-12-19 DOI:10.23736/S2724-606X.22.05175-2
Maria C Budani, Stefania Fensore, Marco DI Marzio, Gian M Tiboni
{"title":"比较生物仿制药与原研促性腺激素α的疗效和安全性的最新荟萃分析。","authors":"Maria C Budani, Stefania Fensore, Marco DI Marzio, Gian M Tiboni","doi":"10.23736/S2724-606X.22.05175-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The aim of this study was to provide an updated meta-analysis assessing the therapeutic equivalence between follitropin alfa biosimilars and the reference medication in women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies (ART).</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>The studies included in the analysis were pooled together in order to estimate the log odds ratio (OR) for binary outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) by using a random effects model. The heterogeneity between the studies was evaluated with the Higgins and χ<sup>2</sup> tests.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>No differences were found concerning the number of oocytes retrieved at ovum pick-up, the primary endpoint recommended by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) (MD -0.04 CI [-0.78, 0.71], P=0.92). A significantly higher clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.70 CI [0.53, 0.93], P=0.01) was observed in the reference product group in comparison to the biosimilar follitropin alfa, whereas no statistically significant differences were found for biochemical pregnancy rate, take home baby rate, total follitropin alfa dose, duration of stimulation, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome risk.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The non-inferiority of biosimilar formulations in comparison to the reference product, with respect to number of oocytes retrieved at ovum pick-up, was shown.</p>","PeriodicalId":18572,"journal":{"name":"Minerva obstetrics and gynecology","volume":" ","pages":"70-79"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An updated meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of biosimilar medicinal products to the original follitropin alfa.\",\"authors\":\"Maria C Budani, Stefania Fensore, Marco DI Marzio, Gian M Tiboni\",\"doi\":\"10.23736/S2724-606X.22.05175-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The aim of this study was to provide an updated meta-analysis assessing the therapeutic equivalence between follitropin alfa biosimilars and the reference medication in women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies (ART).</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>The studies included in the analysis were pooled together in order to estimate the log odds ratio (OR) for binary outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) by using a random effects model. The heterogeneity between the studies was evaluated with the Higgins and χ<sup>2</sup> tests.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>No differences were found concerning the number of oocytes retrieved at ovum pick-up, the primary endpoint recommended by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) (MD -0.04 CI [-0.78, 0.71], P=0.92). A significantly higher clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.70 CI [0.53, 0.93], P=0.01) was observed in the reference product group in comparison to the biosimilar follitropin alfa, whereas no statistically significant differences were found for biochemical pregnancy rate, take home baby rate, total follitropin alfa dose, duration of stimulation, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome risk.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The non-inferiority of biosimilar formulations in comparison to the reference product, with respect to number of oocytes retrieved at ovum pick-up, was shown.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18572,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Minerva obstetrics and gynecology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"70-79\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Minerva obstetrics and gynecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-606X.22.05175-2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/12/19 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva obstetrics and gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-606X.22.05175-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/12/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介本研究旨在提供一项最新的荟萃分析,评估在接受辅助生殖技术(ART)治疗的妇女中,促甲状腺激素α生物仿制药与参比药物之间的治疗等效性:将纳入分析的研究集中在一起,利用随机效应模型估算二元结果的对数几率比(OR)和连续结果的平均差(MD)以及相应的95%置信区间(CI)。研究之间的异质性通过希金斯检验和χ2检验进行评估:在欧洲药品管理局(EMA)推荐的主要终点--取卵时取回的卵母细胞数方面,没有发现差异(MD -0.04 CI [-0.78, 0.71],P=0.92)。参比产品组的临床妊娠率明显高于生物仿制药组(OR 0.70 CI [0.53,0.93],P=0.01),而在生化妊娠率、带回家婴儿率、卵泡刺激素α总剂量、刺激持续时间和卵巢过度刺激综合征风险方面则没有统计学差异:结论:就取卵时取回的卵母细胞数量而言,生物类似制剂与参比产品相比无劣效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
An updated meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of biosimilar medicinal products to the original follitropin alfa.

Introduction: The aim of this study was to provide an updated meta-analysis assessing the therapeutic equivalence between follitropin alfa biosimilars and the reference medication in women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies (ART).

Evidence acquisition: The studies included in the analysis were pooled together in order to estimate the log odds ratio (OR) for binary outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) by using a random effects model. The heterogeneity between the studies was evaluated with the Higgins and χ2 tests.

Evidence synthesis: No differences were found concerning the number of oocytes retrieved at ovum pick-up, the primary endpoint recommended by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) (MD -0.04 CI [-0.78, 0.71], P=0.92). A significantly higher clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.70 CI [0.53, 0.93], P=0.01) was observed in the reference product group in comparison to the biosimilar follitropin alfa, whereas no statistically significant differences were found for biochemical pregnancy rate, take home baby rate, total follitropin alfa dose, duration of stimulation, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome risk.

Conclusions: The non-inferiority of biosimilar formulations in comparison to the reference product, with respect to number of oocytes retrieved at ovum pick-up, was shown.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Minerva obstetrics and gynecology
Minerva obstetrics and gynecology OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
191
期刊最新文献
Use of the Knutson's paste for the treatment of perineal wound dehiscence after vaginal delivery: a single-center clinical experience. Endometriosis and risk factors in pregnancy, labor and delivery: a case-control study. Recipients' age, fresh embryo and blastocyst-stage embryo transfer as favorable factors in a transnational oocyte donation program. The role of colposcopy in HPV vaccination era. The predictive role of uterocervical angle in labor outcomes: a narrative review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1