MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400308233 · doi:10.1093/humrep/deae108.910

P-576 Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modelling to explore dosing regimens of corifollitropin alfa for ovarian stimulation without the need for additional daily recFSH injections

2024· article· en· W4400308233 on OpenAlexaff
Human M. Fatemi, Nikolaos P. Polyzos, Per Larsson, Bernadette Mannaerts

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Reproduction · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian function and disorders
Canadian institutionsWomen's Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDosingPharmacodynamicsMedicinePharmacokineticsPharmacologyStimulationAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Study question Can ovarian stimulation in IVF patients be realized with one or two corifollitropin alfa (CFA) injections only? Summary answer For 94% of IVF patients, ovarian stimulation can be safely completed with a maximum of two CFA injections What is known already A single dose CFA replaces the first week of stimulation with daily recFSH, providing ovarian stimulation similar to daily 300 IU recFSH. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) modelling has shown that a threshold serum FSH concentration of 1.1 ng/ml (∼ 6.72 IU/L) is required to maintain multiple follicular development, and that such FSH concentrations are maintained for 7 days following single injection. From day 8 onwards, most patients require daily recFSH injections to maintain serum FSH above threshold to complete the follicular growth. Patients requiring profound stimulation, e.g. prior to ‘freeze-all’, would benefit most from CFA only treatment, requiring less injections. Study design, size, duration This was a retrospective analysis using individual patient data from 4 large CFA trials, including totally 2397 IVF patients receiving a single injection of CFA followed by daily follitropin beta injections from day 8 of stimulation until triggering. Participants/materials, setting, methods A PK model developed for CFA was used to predict serum concentrations following different dosing regimens of CFA only. Clinical trial data from 2397 patients was used to estimate the distribution of the required length of stimulation and to evaluate the impact of different dosing regimens on the serum FSH concentrations up to the day of triggering. Main results and the role of chance At stimulation day 8, 21% of patients did not require additional FSH, whereas 25%, 27%, 14%, and 7% needed 1, 2, 3 or 4 days additional stimulation days to complete the cycle. Only 6% required more than 4 days additional stimulation. Patients below 60 kg remained longer above the threshold and additional dosing could have been delayed to stimulation day 9-11 depending on the initial dose (100 or 150 mg). In a 70 kg woman, daily doses of 7 mg CFA would be sufficient to maintain trough concentrations of FSH above the threshold, and a single dose of 15 and 30 mg on day 8 would sustain stimulation for another 2 and 4 days, respectively. A single dose of 30 mg on day 8 would increase FSH concentrations from 7 IU/L to a maximal level of approximately 12 IU/L, a fluctuation that is unlikely to recruit new small follicles during the late follicular phase. It is therefore suggested that patients can be safely treated with a second dose of 30 mg CFA on day 8 of stimulation, without risk of overdosing when receiving GnRH agonist triggering, and that 94% of patients will not need more than two doses. Limitations, reasons for caution The theoretical dosing regimens build upon this retrospective analysis and modelling needs to be validated in a clinical study to confirm that one additional dose of CFA is able to complete ovarian stimulation efficiently. Wider implications of the findings IVF patients planned to have ‘freeze-all’ following GnRH agonist triggering may be treated conveniently with one or max two injections of CFA for ovarian stimulation. Trial registration number not applicable

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.585
Threshold uncertainty score0.494

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman ReproductionSame topicOvarian function and disordersFrench-language works237,207