A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (follitropin alfa) versus purified urinary follicle-stimulating hormone in a low-dose step-up regimen to induce ovulation in Japanese women with anti-estrogen-ineffective oligo- or anovulatory infertility: results of a single-blind Phase III study. | LitMetric

Purpose: We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone (follitropin alfa) and purified urinary human follicle-stimulating hormone (urofollitropin) for ovulation induction in Japanese women with anovulatory infertility;also to verify the noninferiority (in terms of ovulation rate) of follitropin alfa versus urofollitropin.

Methods: In a Phase III, multicenter, single-blind, parallel-group study, we enrolled 265 Japanese women aged 20-39 years. The patients were menstruating without apparent ovulation or were amenorrheic (with a positive progestin challenge test), and had failed to conceive with anti-estrogen ovulation-induction therapy. The patients underwent a low-dose step-up regimen using follitropin alfa or urofollitropin with a starting dose of 75 IU. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who ovulated (mid-luteal serum progesterone ≥5 ng/mL and/or confirmed clinical pregnancy). Secondary endpoints included the proportion of patients with a dominant follicle (≥18 mm) and the duration of stimulation.

Results: Ovulation occurred in 79.1% and 82.6% of the patients who received follitropin alfa and urofollitropin, respectively, in the full-analysis set ( = 261), and in 79.2% and 82.5% of the per-protocol set ( = 251). The predefined noninferiority criteria for the primary endpoint were achieved. No significant differences were observed in any secondary endpoint. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by a similar proportion of patients in each group (follitropin alfa, 53.5%; urofollitropin, 50.0%).

Conclusions: No significant difference in the primary efficacy endpoint (rate of ovulation) was observed between follitropin alfa and purified urofollitropin in women with anovulatory infertility who were menstruating or had progestin-positive amenorrhea. The use of treatment holidays in this study prevents comparison of the data with previous trials that utilized consecutive daily doses.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5906845PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12522-010-0046-5DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

follitropin alfa
28
follicle-stimulating hormone
16
japanese women
12
proportion patients
12
hormone follitropin
8
alfa versus
8
purified urinary
8
low-dose step-up
8
step-up regimen
8
anovulatory infertility
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!